The Sye delusion

There has been a great deal of debate on Stephen Law’s blog recently. A presuppositional apologist called Sye Tenb has a website that claims to offer a proof for God’s existence. Stephen’s comments on this ‘proof’ opened the floodgates, and the ensuing battle that raged between Sye and his critics ran to 254 comments, and has since spawned numerous additional posts from Stephen. In this post I will briefly explain why I think Sye has failed to make his case.


Sye’s unsound argument

In a nutshell, Sye’s argument is as follows:

P1: The existence of logic presupposes the existence of the Christian God.
P2: Logic exists.
C: Therefore, the Christian God exists.

This is a valid deductive argument, but it will only be sound if both premises are actually true i.e. we agree to accept that they are self-evidently true, or else they are the conclusion of some other sound logical argument. Of course, both of these possibilities can be contentious, for what are we justified in taking as self-evidently true, and where do we finally stop in our chain of justifications if each premise is the conclusion from some other argument? Ultimately, it turns on the concept of properly basic beliefs (beliefs that require no further justification), as this is where the buck finally stops if you do not believe that there is an infinite chain of justifications, or that we can have circular justifications. However, Sye has not provided a sound argument (or series of arguments) to justify his P1. Nor has he asserted, much less attempted to justify (which would be impossible to do anyway, in my view), that his P1 is a properly basic belief. Therefore, I will accept that P2 is true, but as P1 is not self-evidently true, and is not justified as the conclusion of a further deductive argument, I will not accept it. Hence, I conclude that his argument is unsound as it stands.

Sye has not admitted that his argument is unsound, as he doesn't seem to think that his P1 is in need of any further justification, although he never explains why this should be the case. Perhaps he doesn't understand the structure of a deductive argument (a conclusion that is logically entailed by a set of premises), or perhaps he thinks that his P1 is a properly basic belief? Anyway, along the way, he has informally presented a number of subsidiary arguments, so I will look at these next.


Sye’s attempts to rescue his unsound argument

Sye has tried a number of approaches to rescue his unsound argument, but each fails. Here are some of his attempts:

Sye attempts to justify P1 from the above argument with the following argument:

P1: Logic cannot be accounted for on any atheist worldview
P2: Sye’s Christian worldview is not an atheist worldview
C: Therefore, logic can only be accounted for on Sye’s Christian worldview

However, this argument is even worse than his original one. Firstly, his new P1 is also not self-evidently true, and is left unjustified – so the argument is not sound. Secondly, even if we grant his new P1 (which we don’t), his argument is not even valid, as it is a false dichotomy. At best, all that it could ever prove is that logic can only be accounted for on some non-atheistic (i.e. theistic) worldview – not necessarily the one that Sye subscribes to. It could just as easily be one in which God is omni-malevolent, or entirely uninterested in humanity, or one that posits a multitude of gods.

Sye has also tried the following argument:

P1: If nobody has yet proven that logic can be accounted for on any atheist worldview, then logic cannot be accounted for on any atheist worldview.
P2: Nobody has yet proven that logic can be accounted for on any atheist worldview
C: Therefore, logic cannot be accounted for on any atheist worldview.

Whilst formally valid, this is a clear example of a logical fallacy: argument from ignorance. Firstly, the people commenting on Stephen’s blog form a very small subset of humanity, so their inability to ‘prove’ this cannot be taken to entail that ‘nobody’ can produce such a proof. Secondly, it is possible that one of more of the people on Stephen’s blog can actually provide such a proof, but they have so far chosen not to do so. Thirdly, even if nobody in the whole world can produce such a proof, or will ever be able to produce such a proof (an assumption that we are not justified in making), the first premise is still false as it stands, as our inability to prove a proposition does not render it false. The first premise would only be true if we presuppose that at least one of Stephen or his commenters is omniscient, and that they would have provided such a proof if they knew it. This assumption is unjustified.

Another variation on the same theme is this attempt from Sye:

P1: If Sye’s Christian worldview is correct then the laws of logic will exist
P2: The laws of logic exist
C: Therefore, Sye’s Christian worldview is correct

However, this argument is an example of a formal fallacy known as affirming the consequent. Even if God’s existence entails that the laws of logic will exist, the converse is not true unless we can show that the laws of logic can exist only if God exists (in which case P1 would become: If and only if God exists then the laws of logic will exist). However, this is not self-evidently true, and Sye has not justified it, so the argument is unsound as it stands.

Sye tried a different approach with this next argument:

P1: People who do not believe that logic can only be accounted for on Sye’s worldview are not entitled to use logic to construct their own arguments
P2: Stephen and some of his commenters do not believe that logic can only be accounted for on Sye’s worldview
C: Therefore, Stephen and some of his commenters are not entitled to use logic to construct their own arguments

However, P1 is not self-evidently true, and Sye offers no good justification for it, so the argument is unsound as it stands.

There is a general theme that runs through Sye’s arguments: his worldview accounts for logic (due to God), so his worldview should be taken as being true unless we can produce a better alternative. However, in general, this is a bad way to argue. Even if we were to grant that it really is the case that there is only one known explanation for some observation (and it is not instead that the arguer is just ignorant of the alternative explanations - as with Sye), then we are still unable to say whether this explanation is a good or bad one without doing some more work. That it is the only explanation doesn’t in any way entail that it is not a bad explanation. Julian Baggini wrote an article about this point.

In fact, Sye's assertion is even stronger than just taking his worldview to be true by default. He asserts that it is actually impossible for any other worldview to account for logic. Moreover, he believes that the onus is upon those who disagree this claim to prove him wrong by proving that their worldview can account for logic, rather than upon him to substantiate his impossibility claim. However, it is clear to all other than Sye and his ilk that the burden of proof rests upon those who make the claim - particularly if this claim disagrees with the consensus view, and even more especially if this claim is contrary to a vast amount of evidence about how the universe actually works. In this case, by asserting that it is impossible for logic to exist without the existence of some supernatural agency (when we have no good evidence that the supernatural exists at all), then Sye has his work cut out. For a good discussion on the burden of proof, see this.

In fact, for a variety of reasons, I would suggest that Sye’s ‘God explanation’ is a very bad explanation – and should therefore be rejected, even if we have no alternative explanation to hand (which isn’t actually the case). In order to validate his theory, what Sye is doing is focusing on one apparently confirmed prediction made by his God theory - that logic exists - and ignoring all of the other failed predictions. Moreover, as we already know about the existence of logic, it looks suspiciously as if God has just been defined in such a way that logic is entailed – as opposed to actually predicting it and finding this prediction met. In any case, if we are really seeking the truth, rather than just indulging in self-delusion, then we cannot focus solely on successful predictions from our theory, and ignore the failures. What Sye should instead be doing is looking to see if his theory can survive his and our best attempts to falsify it. Moreover, to be properly falsifiable, his theory should make clear, unambiguous, and bold statements that can be compared empirically against reality. If his theory’s predictions are vague and equivocal, then it will be difficult to falsify, since it is not clear what would constitute a failed prediction. Equally, if his theory merely predicts things that we already know to be true (such as the existence of logic), then we have no good reason to favour his theory over any other that merely predicts the same observations.

In fact, I would argue that the God theory (based upon the core Christian beliefs) is a bad one, as it is implausible, lacks parsimony, and has little explanatory scope or power. In order to explain the existence of the physical universe, it posits some unseen and inscrutable supernatural realm ruled by a universe-creating superbeing. Since we have no independent proof that anything other than the physical universe actually exists, this makes the theory inherently implausible. As such, its extraordinary claims require a correspondingly high standard of supporting evidence. Do we have such evidence? Theists will typically resort to the evidence in the Bible, to what their religious leaders (or other people) tell them, or to their own perception of religious experience.

Firstly, the Bible. In general, I would contend that forming empirical beliefs about the world based upon statements contained in ancient historical documents is liable to be unreliable. Due to the many known examples of misplaced credulity, exaggeration, and fabrication in historical documents, and to the lack of knowledge of the world possessed by people in these ancient times, we must be very careful about granting too much credence to the contents of these documents. Descriptions of events are always questionable unless they can be corroborated by relevantly similar descriptions in other sources – preferably those already known to be reliable. Additionally, in the case of contentious elements (miracles and suchlike), we need to consider whether it is more likely that the events or things described actually happened, or that (as a minimum) the supernatural elements of such descriptions are false. In the particular case of the Bible, we have a number of serious problems:

1) We have accounts that were written many years after the events themselves were supposed to have happened
2) We have inconsistent and contradictory descriptions of the same events
3) We have little or no corroboration in any other sources
4) We have methods that are known to introduce unreliability - word of mouth, geographically dispersed multiple authors, editing and compilation that is arbitrary or that has an agenda, elements that were revealed in dreams etc.
5) On top of all of this, we have a number of extraordinary metaphysical claims about supernatural entities (including God) and events. Some of these claims are in opposition to our current reliably formed knowledge about how the universe actually works.

In light of this, I would argue that the Bible clearly does not constitute the necessary extraordinary evidence for the extraordinary metaphysical claims made about the existence of God and a supernatural realm.

Appeal to religious leaders or other people fares no better than appeal to the Bible as a source of the requisite extraordinary evidence. The first problem when it comes to relying on such testimony is that the set of statements made by such people is partially or wholly contradictory, so choosing to believe any particular statement or set of statements on this basis alone would seem to be purely arbitrary. Generally, we can accord some measure of reliability to testimony if the statements come from someone who has demonstrated that they are an expert on the topic concerned. However, in the case of religious leaders, the statements are usually vague metaphysical ones that offer no means by which their truth or falsity may be determined. We have no independent yardstick against which to judge the reliability or otherwise of their metaphysical statements, so no determination can be made. Hence, we have no good reason to judge this as a reliable truth generating mechanism, and plenty of other reasons to judge it otherwise (some statements contradict reliably formed knowledge, and many statements are in contradiction with each other etc.). So, this also fails to meet the necessary high standard of evidence.

How about people’s religious experience – does this provide the necessary evidence? I would argue that the simple answer is no. Firstly, any divine messages and revelations that people claim to have received by such means are culture-specific, inconsistent and contradictory. Secondly, any such messages seem to consist of nothing more than banalities or vague and unverifiable metaphysical notions. No new and verifiable scientific or mathematical knowledge is ever produced, for example. Thirdly, we are aware of many more plausible and more mundane alternative explanations for such feelings of the transcendental – dreams, hallucinations, power of suggestion, psychotic episodes, delusions etc. Are we justified in taking such experiences at face value (as basic beliefs), in the same way that I would do when I perceive an object in front of my eyes? No, as the difference between the two cases is that we have no evidence that religious experiences reliably generate true belief, whereas we have lots of mutually-reinforcing evidence of the reliability (most of the time) of our senses. Furthermore, as the beliefs acquired through religious experiences are often contradictory, we know that some or all of them must be wrong. Hence, it is clearly an unreliable mechanism for generating true belief, and can be discounted as a way of acquiring the necessary extraordinary evidence for God’s existence.

What’s more, even if we were to grant some supernatural communication (which we have no good reason to do), neither we nor those communicated with have any way to establish that the message comes from God – as opposed to it being a deception from some evil demon, for example. Even God, if it exists, would have no way to determine if it was actually being deceived by some evil demon into thinking that it is the creator and ruler of the universe (since, if it is being deceived in this way, then it is not actually omniscient and omnipotent at all – this is merely part of the deception).

Attempts have been made to prove the existence of God by analytic means alone – for example, the Ontological Argument. However, this argument is open to a number of objections, and few philosophers are convinced of its soundness. Theists might also resort to one or other of the cosmological or teleological arguments for God’s existence. However, all of these arguments have been convincingly rebutted, and most can anyway only argue for some inscrutable universe-creating entity as opposed to the specific Judeo-Christian God.

So, in conclusion, there is no good evidence, much less extraordinary evidence, that God and his supernatural realm exist at all.

Furthermore, when we examine the predictions that the God theory makes, we find that it predicts a very different universe from the one that we find ourselves in. We would expect it to be far smaller, more congenial to our type of life, contain far less suffering, and contain clear and unambiguous evidence of God’s existence. What we actually find is that the universe is very old, very big, almost entirely lethal to our type of life, and that life evolved by some meandering and haphazard process. Why? Moreover, why does God need a universe at all? Surely we should all be in Heaven (or Hell) already, as an omniscient God must know how we will choose to act (even if we were to grant the existence of free will).

What's more, our world contains far more suffering (both natural and man-made, ours and that of other animals) than is reconcilable with the concept of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God. Why would God create a world containing so much suffering, when he surely had an infinite number of other possible ways that he could do it? And, if he did knowingly create the universe this way, is he not morally responsible for all of this suffering?

In addition, why would God’s existence be unknown to billions of people who have lived, or are alive today? Why wait until the last few thousand years, and then only reveal it to a handful of people in Palestine? If we need to believe in God’s existence in order to enter Heaven, as many Christians believe, then God has knowingly consigned billions of people to eternal suffering (or, at best, they will not enter Heaven). Why?

Yes, the theory can be patched up by the introduction of a plethora of entirely ad-hoc elements (e.g. necessity of human free will, benefits of suffering, God’s mysterious plan etc.). However, by such means we could justify any theory. To proceed this way is intellectually dishonest, as it renders the theory unfalsifiable. Whatever criticism is levelled at the theory, the theist will just introduce some additional ad-hoc element to explain it away. Therefore, Ockham’s razor would rule against such a theory in favour of some more plausible and parsimonious natural explanation for the world. For much more on this, I would recommend the following essay (which Sye, in particular, would do well to read and ponder).


Conclusion

Anyway, back to Sye’s original ‘laws of logic’ argument. At several points in the discussions, he gives the game away by saying that he knows that God exists, as he has had an ‘objective revelation’. So, it seems that even he isn’t really convinced by his own argument (as well he shouldn’t be), or else he would not need to justify his belief in God by reference to this ‘objective revelation’. What this ‘objective revelation’ is he never explains. Until he is prepared to spell it out in detail, I cannot evaluate it one way or the other, so I will ignore it.

Sye has repeatedly asked for an explanation of how the laws of logic can exist on an atheist worldview. As I have explained, the absence of such an explanation in no way helps Sye’s case. Nevertheless, I will point him in the right direction with the links below. In the meantime, he needs to answer the following question – which he has repeatedly and conspicuously failed to do. Until he does, then his arguments amount to nothing.

Sye: Please demonstrate, by means of a sound logical argument, that logic can only be accounted for in your worldview.


http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/logic.html

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/induction.html

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/reppert.html

The Divine Command Theory of Morality

I think that the divine command theory of morality suffers from a number of problems that, cumulatively, render it fatally flawed:

Does God exist?

A serious objection to the divine command theory of morality is that it assumes God’s existence. If God’s existence can be questioned, then the argument for a divine command theory of morality is undermined. In fact, I would contend that not only are we entitled to doubt the existence of God, but that we can go much further and argue that the case for the existence of God (with all of its very particular properties and desires), is very weak – although I won't elaborate upon that any further here.

If God doesn’t exist, then we have no mandate to follow the moral rules attributed to God for that reason alone. We might still decide to incorporate some of them into our moral framework, but they must stand or fall upon their own merits, not because they are supposed to be commands issued by God.


What makes God’s commands morally good?

If, for the sake of argument, we assume that God exists, then we are entitled to ask why the morality commanded by God is good. When considering this question, we might usefully refer to Plato’s famous Euthyphro dilemma: is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?

In the former case, then we can just help ourselves to this morality without reference to God at all, as it makes God just the passer-on of a morality that exists independently of him. It also leads to a number of further questions that the theist needs to answer. For example, where did this morality come from in the first place, if not from God? Did it exist before the universe? If so, does it make any sense to conceive of some abstract or idealised concept of morality existing before the universe? If this morality is somehow independent of God, then how does God know that it is necessarily good, if he has no absolute moral yardstick against which to measure it?

Alternatively, the theist may take the second option. In this case, God could have commanded murder to be morally good, for example, and it would be so - since the command comes from God. In this case, the theist then has two further options. They may just bite the bullet and accept that murder would indeed have been morally good had God commanded it so. However, few are willing to subscribe to this view, as it contradicts our most basic concepts of what constitutes moral behaviour. On the other hand, the theist may contend that God would never have commanded murder to be a moral rule as God, being perfectly good, would only command what is good. However, this is just circular reasoning, and doesn’t deal with the dilemma, as we can rephrase it to deal with this objection i.e. is God good because to be good is just to be whatever God is, or is God good because God has all the properties of goodness? We are back in the same situation again with goodness either being arbitrary, or existing independently of God.


Why should we obey God?

Again, if for the sake of argument we assume God’s existence, then why should we obey God’s commands anyway? If God was to command us to torture and murder others, then would we be obligated to obey such commands, even though they go against our common moral sense?

Of course, the theist may contend that God would not command us to do such things, as God is perfectly good. However, there are at least two problems with this reasoning. Firstly, there are plenty of examples in the Bible of moral atrocities supposedly being commanded by God, so the precedent clearly exists. Furthermore, some of the moral rules attributed to God would seem according to our common moral standards to be cruel and disproportionate in that they specify a penalty of death for such supposed crimes as blasphemy, picking up sticks on the Sabbath, being a witch, and talking back to one’s parents.

Of course, some Christians might object that the New Testament gives a far kinder message, as preached by Jesus, and describes the new covenant between God and man. However, the New Testament still contains various odious rules and strictures, a command to still obey the rules of the Old Testament, as well as the introduction of the concept of eternal punishment for a variety of supposed sins. Moreover, in some Christian worldviews, the avoidance of hell comes by accepting Jesus as one's saviour - which therefore bars entry to heaven to all those who existed before Jesus lived, who don't hear his message for any other reason, or who have heard his message but have chosen to reject it in favour of some other belief system or of none. Moreover, the whole concept of the New Testament preaching a kinder message implies that God's personality or teachings have changed from those described in the Old Testament, or that he has changed his mind. But surely this cannot be so, as this would imply some sort of moral development or improvement on God's part, but he is by definition omniscient, omnipotent, and morally perfect. As such, how can he improve, and for what reason could he ever change his mind, since he already knows all there is to know?

Secondly, how can we ever know that something is good just because it is commanded by God, since we can never know that God is perfectly good? We cannot take God’s word for this, as it merely begs the question. And just defining God as perfectly good doesn’t settle the matter either, as I would contend that God’s existence and characteristics are synthetic propositions, not analytic ones, as we are dealing with aspects of the real world rather than just formal logic.

Furthermore, if somebody alleges that God has given them some moral command or other, or detailed a list of commands that we should all follow, then this too is highly problematic. How are we to know that this person is not deluded or lying? Moreover, assuming that the person in question truly believes that God has given them this moral command, then how can they themselves ever know that they were not just imagining it? Furthermore, even if they did actually receive some genuine communication, how can they or we ever know that this communication emanated from God, and not from some other entity – supernatural or otherwise?

For the foregoing reasons, I don’t think that anyone is entitled to evade moral responsibility for their actions by arguing that they are merely following a command from God, even if this were actually true.


What are God’s commands?

The moral and ethical guidelines in the Bible are often contradictory, and are open to multiple interpretations. So, how are we to determine exactly what morality is espoused therein? In light of this, I think that we might also ask why such supposedly important messages for humanity were not communicated in a clear and unambiguous fashion - one that is not open to multiple and often conflicting interpretations?

Of the moral guidelines that are more clearly expressed in the Bible, some deal with matters that would seem to be unimportant or neutral when it comes to a moral life. For example, rules to not eat shellfish, and to not wear clothes of mixed fibres.

Theists might attempt to gloss over the multiple inconsistencies in God’s moral law, as detailed in the Bible, and interpret it in order to render it more agreeable to our current moral sensibilities. However, if we decide to ignore or interpret certain of God’s moral rules (killing blasphemers, Sabbath breakers, witches, disobedient children; not eating shellfish, and not wearing mixed-fibre clothes etc.), but to follow other rules, then we have either made an arbitrary choice or else, more probably, we are making our choice based upon some other moral yardstick that is independent of the Bible. If it is the former, then it would seem to be a rather unreliable way to build a moral framework. If the latter case, then we might as well reason our way to this independent morality without reference to the Bible at all.


Are God’s rules necessary for a moral society?

One might argue that, even if we doubt God’s existence, society should still adhere to religious morality, as it will lead to greater moral health. However, it is rather conspicuous that many societies have or have had ethical systems that are not based upon some divine command theory, without them having any consequent morally bankruptcy. For example, the Ancient Greeks had a very well developed secular ethical system (they condoned slavery, but then so did Christian societies). Even though the Greeks had their own gods, these Gods apparently did not concern themselves with dictating moral laws.

Further, there is very good empirical data that shows a strong positive correlation between a society’s level of religiosity and the prevalence of all sorts of ills – crime, illiteracy, mortality rates etc. For example, many Western European societies are amongst the least religious in the World, but they can be seen to have a good moral health by almost all of the relevant markers. This doesn't necessarily imply a causal relationship, but it does undermine the theory that a society’s moral health is dependent upon it being religious.

Some theists argue that modern Western society is in moral decline, and correlate this with an increasing lack of religiosity. However, this is a fallacious argument. By almost any marker, Western societies are more moral than they ever were when they were more religious. They are freer, more equal, less violent, more compassionate, and so on. What the theists are doing when they make this type of argument is to confuse such societal tendencies as greater consumerism (which I would argue can be morally negative, neutral, or positive, depending upon the specifics), with a moral decay.

The theist may also assert that atheists or secular societies that they would consider to actually be moral are only so because they are living off the moral capital built up by a previous religious tradition. However, this argument seems to be an entirely ad hoc one, with no good supporting evidence ever being produced.


Who is the more moral?

We might reasonably ask who the more moral person is. The one who acts morally out of a selfless desire to treat others decently and compassionately, or the theist who is doing it in blind adherence to divine laws, or for prudential reasons, in order to gain a reward, and avoid a punishment from God?


Where does morality come from?

So, if morality doesn’t come from God, then where does it come from? I think that we have an innate sense of morality, and that this is derived from our evolutionary heritage. Our cultures and intellects have given us additional moral drivers, and modified existing ones, but I think that the roots of our morality are evolutionary. When our primitive ancestors started to form groups, their chances of survival were increased by acting in certain cooperative ways, and decreased by acting in others. Clearly, those who acted in those ways conducive to survival were more likely have offspring and to pass on their genes. Hence, tendencies towards such things as reciprocal altruism were selected for by evolution.

For example, the so-called Golden Rule clearly has a survival advantage for each member in a group if all group members adhere to it. In fact, it has been demonstrated in game theory that the principle that gives the best result for individual group members is one in which a member will initially cooperate with another member, but will henceforth copy the last action of the other member in a tit-for-tat fashion – either cooperating or not. The theory behind this is known as the Prisoner’s Dilemma. Lo and behold, examples of this type of behaviour are indeed witnessed in nature, and can quite clearly be seen to be precursors to our own morality.

That our innate morality is based upon our evolutionary heritage doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t seek to improve upon it. Science helps to explain what is the case, but not what ought to be the case. For this, we need to apply the methods of reason.


Can we have a secular morality?

If we are to dispense with religious morality, then what can we put in its place? Three major types of secular morality have been devised: Virtue Ethics, Kantian Ethics, and Utilitarianism. Each takes a different approach - emphasising virtue and flourishing, duty, and consequences of actions respectively, and each has its own strengths and weaknesses. Perhaps none is sufficient to take as a complete moral framework, so we may need to attempt to combine the best aspects of each in a way that doesn’t lead to contradictions and internal inconsistencies.

One big advantage that all of these secular moral systems have over the divine command theory is that none inherently entails a dogmatic and blind adherence to its moral strictures. Each offers a set of moral objectives or meta-rules but, as they were arrived at by means of evidence, reason, and reflection, they are theoretically open to revision and improvement. By contrast, divine commands are intrinsically dogmatic, since they were supposedly handed down by God, and they are thus strongly resistant to change. The result of this is that such moralities still incorporate many ancient rules that reasoned analysis would now class as either morally neutral (e.g. eating shellfish), or as unenlightened and bad (such as enshrining the inequality of women).

Furthermore, in light of the previously discussed flaws with the divine command theory of morality, I think that stipulating death for victimless crimes like the breaking of trivial ad hoc rules or for professing unbelief in God is in itself immoral. So, I would argue that for these reasons alone any of the secular moralities mentioned above is better than the divine command theory.

Conclusion

I would argue that some of the supposedly divine moral commands are merely parasitic upon our innate sense of morality, whilst others are at best irrelevant to a good morality and, at worst, in direct opposition to it.

I would further argue that the case for a divine command theory of morality is rendered fatally flawed because God’s existence is in clear doubt, because any such system of morality would either be arbitrary or independent of any God, because we should not just blindly follows such rules, and because the rules are ambiguous and inconsistent anyway.

I don’t think that any absolute and true divine system of morality exists (or any other absolute moral system, for that matter), so we don’t have the misplaced certainty of the theist. Instead, we need to build upon our innate sense of morality by devising a secular morality through the investigation of evidence and the application of reason. This task will not be easy, and much more work needs to be done, but I think that this is the best way forward in the quest for a good morality, as morality does not depend upon God.

A good reason to be happy

I realised today that I have a very good reason to be happy. No matter what other misfortune I experience, the fact that the Judeo-Christian god almost certainly doesn't exist is a cause for great cheer. This might seem a strange thing to say, but the Bible describes the character of this god in some detail, and it is not one of absolute goodness. Rather, God is portrayed as belligerent, bloodthirsty, vengeful, jealous, and megalomaniacal. Those who doubt this should read the texts for themselves. It is disingenuous to attempt to define God as omnibenevolent, when the contrary evidence in the Holy books is there for all to see. Words can have no use if we can just redefine to suit our own tastes.

If such a god existed, and was present in our daily lives, then there is every reason to think that life in this theocracy would be similar to that in a totalitarian state. If we go by what the Bible tells us, then there would be no democracy, no freedom of speech and movement, no equality of sexes or races, slavery would be acceptable, blatant homophobia would exist, and death would be meted out for a large range of supposed crimes. Moreover, it would be totalitarian to an extent only dreamed of by leaders such as Stalin, Mao, and Kim Il-sung. As God knows your very thoughts, the level of surveillance and control would be absolute. You can’t even escape through death, as eternal punishment awaits you.

Of course, we might say, contrary to all of the evidence, that God is not like that, and would not institute such a system. However, such Christian luminaries as Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, and Luther paint a very different picture, with their support for blasphemy and other imaginary crimes being punishable by death. Some Christians might object that the New Testament gives a far kinder message, as preached by Jesus, and describes the new covenant between God and man. However, the New Testament still contains various odious strictures to hate one's family and abandon it (Matt. 10:35-37, Matt. 19:29, Mark 10:29-30, Luke14:26 etc.), and to kill disobedient children (Matt. 15:4-7, Mark 7:9-10). Furthermore, the second coming will see the destruction of any who do not accept Jesus (Matt. 10:14-15, Luke 10:12, Matt. 24:37, 2 Pet. 3:7,10). And God promises further death and destruction (Rev. 6:8, 8:7, 8:10-11, 9:13, 17-18 etc.).

However, the worst aspect of the New Testament is that it introduces the abhorrent concept of eternal punishment in Hell (Matt. 7:13-14, 13:42, 25:41, Luke 3:17 etc.) - which tells us much about God's personality. In some Christian worldviews, the avoidance of hell comes by accepting Jesus as one's saviour - which therefore condemns to hell all those who existed before Jesus lived, who don't hear his message for any other reason, or who have heard his message but have chosen to reject it in favour of some other belief system or of none. Some other Christians subscribe to the idea of predestination, in which entrance to heaven is down to God's personal whim, with those he rejects for his own inscrutable reasons being consigned to eternal damnation. Some Christians at least preach that entry to heaven is based upon the deeds of one's life, but it is still absurdly harsh to commit sinners (including those whose only 'sin' is a very rational lack of belief) to eternal punishment.

Moreover, the whole concept of the New Testament preaching a kinder message implies that God's personality or teachings have changed from those described in the Old Testament. But surely this cannot be so, as this would imply some sort of moral development or improvement on God's part, but he is by definition omniscient, omnipotent, and morally perfect. As such, how can he improve, and for what reason could he ever change his mind, since he already knows all there is to know?

For further evidence of God's character we need only look around us. What kind of an all powerful being, given an infinite amount of time, would come up with our world with all its attendant suffering? For most of human history, the majority of people have led short, brutal lives, and have died in pain - being killed by other humans, natural disasters, animals, hunger, thirst, or disease. Every day millions of people suffer and die horribly for no apparent greater reason, and no obvious benefit to themselves or others.

The whole of the natural world is so engineered that animals must compete for finite resources, and must kill and eat each other in order to survive. Sure, it might all be for some mysterious greater reason that only God knows about, but that type of ad-hoc reasoning could be used to justify anything. And trying to justify all of this suffering by recourse to the benefits of human free will, as a means of spiritual or moral growth, or as a test fail dismally too. The existence of human free will is a moot topic in the first place, with determinism and compatibilism arguing that it is fully or partially illusory, but is irrelevant anyway when considering suffering caused by natural disasters (earthquakes, floods etc). Furthermore, an all-powerful God could surely have created a system in which we had free will, but made it a law of nature that we could do no harm to others.

And, when it comes to moral development, surely God could have created humans to be virtuous and morally good in the first place, without any need for self-improvement. Even if some amount of suffering is necessary in order to allow for such virtues as compassion and heroism, the vast quantity of suffering present in the world hugely outweighs any supposed benefit. Was all of death and suffering of the concentration camps justified so that a few people would have the opportunity to be saintly? Further, some good people suffer terribly, whilst other bad people do not suffer at all. Why is that? Also, much suffering goes unseen by others. How is this beneficial to the sufferers?

The idea that our actions and our choices to believe in God and Jesus or otherwise are some sort of test is equally absurd. What need does God have of tests since, being omniscient and omnipotent, he must by already know what the outcomes will be? As he does know these outcomes, to choose to create human beings who he knows will fail his tests, and thus be consigned to hell, is the work of an horrific sadist.

Is the creator of all this the type of being whose rule we would want to live under, and who we should praise?

No, I for one am very happy that such a god almost certainly doesn’t exist

CFI London - Opening Ceremony

On Friday 18th January I attended a very interesting day of events for the CFI London Inauguration ceremony (in association with the South Place Ethical Society). Paul Kurtz spoke at the event, as did Stephen Law, Julian Baggini, Nigel Warburton, and others. Richard Dawkins even did an impromptu Q & A session. I have a few nuanced thoughts on some of the issues raised in the talks, and will elaborate on these here.

Stephen Law – Secularism: a Simple Test

His presentation was interesting and enjoyable - definitely one of the better talks of the day. My thoughts relate to a question that I asked him on the possible objection of the religious that secularism could be objected to on the grounds that it is an imposition upon them. Therefore, at the very least, we could be accused of hypocrisy, since we resist having the views of the religious imposed upon us.

My opinion is that a secular state is the best compromise when you have many competing religious and non-religious ideologies in a society, as it prevents the supporters of one idea from gaining total power and suppressing all other dissenting ideas. I think that a healthy society should allow for a marketplace of ideas, with the (perhaps unrealistic) hope that the better ones will eventually win out, but not by suppressing the others. The only ideas ruled out of court in such an environment would be those that violate people's basic human rights (a slightly slippery topic that I address more here), or the harm principle.

So, for example, intolerance of and discrimination against others based upon their sex, race, or sexual persuasion would not be tolerated, whatever the teachings of the ideology in question might say to the contrary. The reason for this is that these characteristics of a human being have no relevance to the ethical treatment that they should expect to receive from others. In other words, they are entirely arbitrary distinctions, and thus have no moral bearing whatsoever. One might as well discriminate against others based upon the fact that they are tall, have curly hair, or were born in Belgium. In order to justify such discrimination, I would need to do a lot of work to show why possession of any of these particular characteristics makes such people deserving of less moral consideration. I can't just make it so by my own fiat. If we allow people to discriminate against others based upon morally irrelevant criteria, then history shows that we are legislating for mass oppression, and possible genocide. In general terms, we are increasing the total sum of human misery, which is the antithesis of an enlightened morality.

There are, of course, morally relevant criteria for discriminating against others. We discriminate against children by not allowing them to drive, for example. But this is for the very good reason that allowing this would most likely lead to a big increase in road fatalities. We discriminate against convicted murderers by restricting their freedoms of movement. But, again, this is for the very good reason that not placing this restriction upon them very much increases the chances of them killing again. We discriminate against people with no medical knowledge when we prevent them from becoming surgeons but, again, the reasons are obvious and justifiable.

Despite what I have said, some religious people would attempt to justify their treatment of women, homosexuals, or non-believers based upon what is written in their holy books, taught by their religious leaders, or what they just 'know' that their god wants. This strategy fails, however, for the following reasons:

1. The morality's authority rests upon it being of divine origin. Without that, it becomes just another human creation, with no particular reason to obey it. Unlike a secular morality, for which we can attempt a justification by appeal to reason and evidence, the morality of divine commands rest entirely on the presumption that it is handed down by god. Take this away, and you are left with nothing. However, there are very good reasons for doubting that such a divine lawgiver exists at all. So, there seems to be no reason why I or anybody else who doubts god's existence should unquestioningly follow such a morality, or allow it to be imposed upon us or on society as a whole.
2. Furthermore, the believer also has no way to know for sure that their god exists. They cannot rely upon philosophical arguments for god's existence, or upon historical evidence of events, miracles or suchlike, since these are all highly contentious. Nor can they rely upon the fact that they are told about god by authority figures in their religion, since these people may themselves be wrong. As to the belief that they communicate with god by prayer or otherwise, they can never know for sure that these feelings are not just a product of their own mind. And the final knockdown argument here is that even if we were to grant, for the sake of argument, some supernatural communication, the believer has no way to ever know that they are not being deceived by some evil demon. If they are being deceived in such a way, then they would have very good reason to not follow the demon's moral commands, since we would expect such commands to be bad. Hence, believers cannot absolve themselves of moral responsibility by thinking that they are just following the commands of their god. They are in the same position as non-believers, in that they must justify their morality by reference to some other moral yardstick.

I list several more reasons for rejecting religious morality here, so I won't repeat myself. Suffice it to say that the case for a divine command theory of morality is very weak.

In the secular society that I propose, free speech would not be curtailed, unless it causes direct harm to others. Moreover, in this context, taking offence does not count as harm. To see why, consider that in any society where a marketplace of ideas is encouraged, people will inevitably take offence at the opinions of others. In particular, different religions make contradictory and incompatible claims about the world, and what we should think, say, and do. Therefore, believers from different religions risk causing offence to each other just by following their own rules. And, of course, non-believers risk causing offence by not following the strictures of any religion. The only way around this is for one religion to gain total control, and force all people to adhere to it - a theocracy. However, this is the worst case scenario for all non-believers and believers of other religions. So, even for the religious, a secular free society gives them the best chance to coexist.

However, by their very nature, many religions are intolerant and crusading, and would dearly like to dominate a society, so we must be very careful in a secular society to not start along the road to appeasement, where we gradually concede our hard-won freedoms. The best way to avoid this is to allow vigorous debate on all ideas. Ideas and beliefs must always be open to criticism and ridicule, for that is part of the process towards winnowing out bad ideas and false beliefs. There is a difference between criticising a person, and criticising their ideas and beliefs, and I have no obligation to avoid doing the latter in order to respect their sensibilities. The reason for this is that beliefs are actions waiting to happen. As Voltaire said: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities". The men who flew the planes into the Towers on 9/11 believed absurdities, and committed atrocities. I think that society has an obligation to allow such absurd beliefs to be attacked by others, in the hope that people will see them for the crass and dangerous nonsense that they are. If we tolerate intolerance, then we sow the seeds of our own destruction.

Of course, there is one other way that, in principle, might be better than a secular society. If we imagine for a moment that we are in possession of the truth regarding the universe, morality, politics, human nature etc., and know how to organise, run, and educate a state in accordance with this knowledge. In such a case, should this not trump a secular state - in which competing ideas are allowed? After all, if people are allowed to indulge their false beliefs, then you risk having your progress towards the ideal state retarded or reversed. Under this scenario, it is for the benefit of everyone if they are forced to comply with the ideal. This is what Stalin and Mao thought, and is what many religious fundamentalists think too.

There are, however, two very big problems with this line of thought. Firstly, as history has shown in the case of communist states and theocracies, human nature is such that implementing these ideologies always leads to totalitarianism and oppression. This then becomes self-refuting, since such an oppressive and totalitarian state cannot reasonably be held up as the best one conceivable (unless by some very skewed moral yardstick). Moreover, there is no evidence that sticking with the plan eventually removes the need for totalitarianism. Rather, it seems to become self-perpetuating, with a small ruling elite exercising complete control over the lives of all the other citizens.

Secondly, there is no way to be absolutely sure that one's 'truth' is actually true. This latter statement would be denied by some fundamentalist religious believers, who do feel that they have a monopoly on the truth, and have a (literally) god-given right to impose this on others. Some such people would like to see society run according to their religious rules, with no opposition from competing religious or secular ideas. According to their thinking, it does actually make perfect sense for them to strive for this goal, since their god (who supposedly created the universe, and set up our moral code) commands it. If you are that sure of being in the right, then it must indeed seem that you are on a mission. Such a course of action, though, does necessarily presuppose that one is absolutely sure of the veracity of one's position. Without this, one would be guilty of a terrible injustice.

However, as I have shown, the burden of proof has definitely not been met by the religious apologists. Further, even if one could somehow meet the burden of proof required to support the existence of some inscrutable universe-creating entity (e.g. by using the fine-tuning argument), then it does not in any way follow that this universe creating entity is Yahweh or Allah. A great deal more work needs to be done in order to reach this conclusion.

Many people justify their belief in god by reasons other than the intellectual. They might, for example, believe that they commune with god, through prayer or otherwise, and that these religious experiences offer incontrovertible proof to them of god's existence (coincidentally, almost always this is the god of their local culture). They often say that if we atheists were open to such experiences, then we would also know that god exists. However, there are alternative explanations on the table that cannot be ruled out. As I have already said, perhaps their religious experiences are all in their mind. How might they persuade us otherwise? Perhaps they have knowledge that they could not have acquired from any other source? Perhaps there is good evidence of prayers being answered? If so, then no evidence of this has yet been forthcoming, and intercessionary prayer studies are either negative or inconclusive. And, as I said earlier, they can never actually be sure that they are not being deceived by some evil demon (not that I think these exist either).

Consequently, I believe that for believers to pursue a totalitarian strategy based upon the supposed commands from their god is indefensible, as its premises are so open to doubt. It goes without saying that we atheists need have no confidence that the believers are party to some great cosmic truth, and should therefore resist any such impositions. A secular society is in the best interests of us all, so this is what we should strive to achieve and maintain.


Mark Vernon – A Case for Agnosticism

One of the other presentations at the CFI event was by Mark Vernon, entitled: ‘A Case for Agnosticism’. I have read some of Vernon’s articles on the Guardian’s CIF site, where he seems to imply that he has adopted the intellectual and moral high ground by deciding to be agnostic rather than atheist (he was formerly a priest, then an atheist, and now an agnostic). I was therefore interested to hear what his case would be for this position.

Well, he does come across as an affable enough chap, but his arguments were very weak in my opinion - consisting of little more than non sequiturs, repetitions of the tired old canards about ‘militant’ atheism and scientism, and the need for religion to underpin morality. I don’t have a transcript or recording of his presentation, so I hope that I am not misrepresenting him here, but his arguments for agnosticism seemed to boil down to the following:

The ‘new’ atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens etc. are militant and aggressive. Therefore Vernon does not want to be an atheist.

Well, it doesn’t take too much effort to figure out why this is a non sequitur. The belief in the existence of god is a metaphysical position, and its veracity or otherwise is not in any way connected to whether ones likes the people who believe it. After all, Hitler probably believed that London is the capital of England, but the fact that he was a nasty piece of work in no way disproves this belief, or causes me to reject it. For the record, I don't find the so-called militant atheists to be objectionable. Rather, I feel that they are merely attempting to take part in this debate with an honesty and passion that is the norm in political and other forums.

Some religious people are very nice (some nuns in the north of England were mentioned in support of this claim), so Vernon does not want to be an atheist.

Again, this is a non sequitur. Some religious people are kind, altruistic, and selfless. But, so are some atheists. The converse is also true. More importantly, the existence of god cannot be inferred from the existence of some nice religious people – the two are entirely independent of each other. As to Vernon’s implication that religion is needed for morality, I have refuted this ubiquitous fallacy elsewhere.

Atheism requires one to be absolutely sure that god does not exist. The non-existence of god cannot be proved, therefore Vernon's agnosticism is the best option.

This tired old canard is repeated ad infinitum, often in the related form that atheism is a ‘faith’ position too. There are three fundamental problems with this line of thinking. Firstly, atheism does not call for such a proof of god’s non existence. Once we move away from the a priori truths of formal logic, and into the outside world, absolute proof of hypotheses is no longer possible. If absolute proof was required, then atheism would cease to have any meaning at all, as it would be an untenable position. If one has no good reasons for believing in god, and lots of good reasons for disbelieving (which is how I would assess the actual situation), then one can be classified as an atheist. Thus, the atheist does not profess absolute certainty that god does not exist but, rather, believes god’s existence to be so unlikely as to be practically negligible.

If we were to follow Vernon’s example, then we would have to be strictly agnostic about the existence of an infinite number of entities. According to his logic, as long as we couldn't prove their non-existence, then we would need to adopt an agnostic stance. Is he similarly agnostic about the existence of Neptune, Thor, and fairies? I have no good reason to believe that they exist, and plenty of good reasons to believe that they don’t. Therefore, as with the Christian god, I dismiss them as possibilities, even though I cannot prove their non-existence. The discovery of good evidence to the contrary might lead me to revise my position, but for now I am happy to reject their existence.

Secondly, agnosticism is the absence of knowledge, and this implies that we are therefore unable to make any judgement at all. We must adopt a state of complete indecision regarding the hypothesis in question. However, this is generally not the case in practice. When assessing a hypothesis, such as the existence of some supernatural being, we are usually able to make a judgement by weighing up the evidence for and against it, looking at whether we can confirm predictions made by the hypothesis about what we would expect to find and not find, and by examining its plausibility and parsimony. These afford us degrees of certainty about the hypothesis in question (from highly unlikely, such as the belief that Elvis is still alive, to highly likely, such has the belief that the Earth is not flat). Whilst we can never absolutely prove that god exists, or absolutely disprove it, I believe that we can be very confident that it doesn't. Hence, atheism is justified. And, when you think about it, how else can we show that something does not exist than to find no evidence of its existence when we look for it in the expected places?

One final point is that the burden of proof rests with the theist here, since they are postulating the existence of some supernatural entity and realm (a la Russell’s teapot). When physicists postulate the existence of atoms, which we cannot see with the naked eye, they are able to give us highly credible and convincing evidence and arguments to support their claims, that we can check for ourselves. When theists talk about god, they are able to offer us nothing in support of this claim other than some deeply flawed metaphysical arguments, a few highly contentious historical documents, and very subjective and unverifiable feelings of talking to god. This fails to come anywhere near to meeting the burden of proof required.

Scientists do not know how and why the universe began, or even if it has always existed. Because of this great mystery, Vernon chooses to be an agnostic.

As Stephen Law put it very succinctly when he questioned Vernon, Sherlock Holmes may not know who killed the murder victim, but he may nevertheless be able to conclusively rule out the butler. And so it is with god. We may not know the origins of the universe, but I think that we can be pretty sure that it wasn't created by the Christian god. To believe so creates more questions than it answers, and is so arbitrary. Why choose this god, and not one of the multitude of others that have been hypothesised? It seems to be nothing but special pleading.

I should say that I am not really happy defining my beliefs in reference to somebody else's metaphysical framework with which I disagree. Therefore, I prefer to think of myself as a naturalist rather than an atheist. There are an infinity of supernatural agents whose existence I doubt, but I do not define myself in their terms. One further point is that people sometimes tend towards agnosticism as it seems to be the middle ground - neither at one extreme nor the other. So, in some sense it seems more reasonable and less arrogant. However, it should be remembered that sometimes the extreme position is the correct one. For example, if I believe the earth to be round, and you believe it to be flat, the truth is not somewhere in between - the earth's a little bit round. Rather, the truth is one of the extreme positions. Such, I believe, is the case with atheism.

So, to sum up, I found Vernon’s case for agnosticism to be weak and specious, so I am not convinced.

Daphne Hampson – Enlightenment 2008

Perhaps the strangest talk of the day was that by Daphne Hampson – a theologist, feminist, and postmodernist. As one might expect from the confluence of such ideologies, her religious views are far from mainstream.

She believes Christianity to be deeply patriarchal and sexist, and the resurrection of Jesus to be untrue. Therefore she rejects the Christian faith. So far, so good. However, she still believes in some concept of god, the power of prayer, and other supernatural actors and actions. In her words:

"I am a Western person, living in a post-Christian age, who has taken something with me from Christian thinkers, but who has rejected the Christian myth. Indeed I want to go a lot further than that. The myth is not neutral; it is highly dangerous. It is a brilliant, subtle, elaborate, male cultural projection, calculated to legitimise a patriarchal world and to enable men to find their way within it. We need to see it for what it is. But for myself I am a spiritual person, not an atheist. I am amazed at this 'other dimension of reality' in which there is; which allows healing, extra-sensory perception, and things to fall into place. I am quite clear there is an underlying goodness, beauty and order; that it is powerful, such that we can draw on it, while we are inter-related with it. I call that God."

Christians criticize Hampson for privileging Enlightenment values such as reason over Christian orthodoxy. However, her reason seems to be applied rather inconsistently, in that she uses it to reject Supernatural events such as the Resurrection, but fails to apply it to questions of god’s existence, the effects of prayer, and the existence of ESP.

As befits a follower of continental philosophy, Hampson’s concept of god seems to be obscure and devoid of meaning. She defines her god as some fuzzy, nebulous “underlying goodness, beauty and order; that it is powerful, such that we can draw on it, while we are inter-related with it”. This amounts to no more than some vague teleological speculation about some inscrutable other dimension, and is not worth our trouble to analyse any further. Nevertheless, her proposition of some ‘other dimension of reality’ does include such features such as intercessionary prayer and ESP - which are open to empirical testing, and thus falsification. Moreover, when such testing has been done, the results have not supported these claims. See, for example, this article about the results of a large study into intercessionary prayer. When Hampson was challenged by a member of the audience about testing her claims scientifically, she gave a rather waffling and unintelligible answer.

I would suggest that her hypothesis has already been falsified beyond reasonable doubt (although this could change in light of some future evidence), and feel that she is being rather disingenuous if she will not concede this. Perhaps she needs to apply some of her much-vaunted reason in order to correct her erroneous beliefs.

As one final point, I noticed that Hampson mentioned some innocuous word or other (innocuous to me at any rate but, then again, I am a man) that she thought was intrinsically sexist, and this put me in mind of Luce Irigaray – another postmodern theorist. She famously said that Einstein’s equation E=mc2:

“privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us. What seems to me to indicate the possibly sexed nature of the equation is not directly its uses by nuclear weapons, rather its having privileged what goes the fastest ... “

I never cease to be amazed at the contrived examples of sexism given by some feminists. But what really dumbfounds me is incredible feat of mental gymnastics evidenced by some liberal-left feminists in being at once hyper-sensitive to imagined sexist transgressions in Western society, but in a state of complete denial when it comes to some of the most egregious examples of genuine sexism. I refer of course to some of the deeply patriarchal and intrinsically sexist Muslim cultures, in which women are routinely subject to genital mutilation, honour killings, forced marriages, severe restrictions on the freedoms of movement, dress, and speech, and chance of an education. Such liberal-left feminists are so blinded by their adherence to the deeply flawed ideology of cultural relativism that they refuse to acknowledge the terrible injustices perpetrated on women in many Islamic cultures.

Such thinking is profoundly fallacious, for a number of reasons.

• Firstly, even though we have yet to reach a universal consensus on the best possible morality, any such system is unlikely to include overt sexism, homophobia, oppression, subjugation, and inequality. And yet these constituents feature heavily in the approved morality of radical Islamic countries. Hence, I think that we are entirely justified in judging such moral systems to be reprehensible. I have more to say about morality here.
• The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a commendable attempt to formally codify basic concepts of human rights. The treatment of citizens (women in particular) in many Muslim countries routinely breaches their human rights, as defined in this document. For human rights to be universal, they need to be applied universally. Therefore, if we are happy to criticise any breaches of human rights in the Western world, we should be equally prepared to criticise them when they occur elsewhere.
• It should be remembered that culture and state is a transient and mutable thing – a set of traditions, religious and political ideologies, and individual, tribal and group power struggles. If a culture or state is oppressive, patriarchal, or tyrannical, there is no reason why its citizens should be forced to endure it.
• It should be further borne in mind that nobody chose to be born into a particular culture and state. The misfortune of being born a woman into a repressive, misogynist society should not condemn one to eke out a miserable life under the rule of one’s father, brothers, and husband (arranged), and to have no freedom of dress, movement, and speech. Such women live under the threat of being beaten, or even killed, if they transgress one of the many religious and cultural rules that govern their existence.
• I would go as far as to say that such cultural relativism is a form of insidious racism: “we wouldn’t want to live like that, but it’s alright for them as it is part of their culture”.
• Such cultural relativism is often born out of misplaced feelings of guilt for being (white)middle-class citizens of countries that are seen as being part of the ‘imperialist’ West. In such a worldview, Muslim states are seen as being victims of the West’s imperialist aggression, and can thus be excused anything. However, it should be remembered that aggression, intolerance, and lust for power are universal human traits, and are not unique to the West. Where we find abuses of human rights, we should condemn them consistently – whether they occur here, or in Muslim counties (or, for that matter, in communist countries). Whilst the West has its own problems with human rights issues, there is no moral equivalency between these and the problems in many Islamic countries (or, for that matter, with those of the current and former communist countries). The residual problems of sexism, racism, homophobia and suchlike still present in our western democratic societies are in no way comparible to that in some Muslim countries, where one can be stoned to death for being gay, acting 'inappropiately' as a women, or the imaginary crimes of blasphemy and apostacy.
• It is truly mind-boggling that some sections of the liberal-left, which should be the supporter of such worthy aims as universal freedom and equality, have managed to reengineer their worldview to such an extent that it now condones repressive, patriarchal, racist, and homophobic societies (for a notable counter-example of someone from the liberal-left who condemns oppression and exposes nonesense, see here).

Azar Majedi - Minority Rights vs Citizen Rights

Azar gave an impassioned presentation, in which she argued that we must resist the imperialist ambitions of political and religious Islam, not turn a blind eye to the human rights abuses happening in Muslim countries, and not appease radical Muslims who live in the West.

She has a particular issue with attempts to instigate Sharia Law in the West. In this, I agree with her unreservedly. A recent poll in the UK indicated the 40% of the Muslims questioned would like to see the introduction of Sharia Law into parts of Britain. This is something that we should oppose unreservedly, as by allowing it to be introduced we would be permitting the removal of what we would call basic human rights for those people under its proposed rule. Whilst we can probably do little to remove it in places such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, we should never permit it to exist in the West. The rights of those who would be condemned to death for imaginary or non crimes trump the rights of those who wish to impose such penalties. Benign cultural differences should of course be tolerated in pluralistic societies such as ours, but we must draw the line at the abuse of basic human rights. Sharia Law codifies and enshrines into law the type of barbaric rules found in the Koran and Hadith (similar ones can be found in the Bible as well), such as the inferiority of women, strict limitations on free speech, and penalties of death for apostasy, adultery, and homosexuality. Those in any doubt as to how it operates in practise should read articles such as this.

I have much more to say about Islam here.

Biblical Interpretation - part 2

In response to an article on the Guardian Comment is Free site, I made some comments that cover related ground to my previous post. Here they are.

In response to the comment “Fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist atheists share the same delusion: they take the Bible far too seriously.”, I said:

I agree that Fundamentalist Christians take the Bible far too seriously. However, I would extend this to all Christians. By contrast, I do not take the Bible seriously at all. This is because I believe it to be just a book written by humans, and disagree that it contains any divine message, since I doubt the existence of the Christian God (for the record, I also doubt that the historical Jesus ever existed). However, I am forced to refer to it if I want to debate Christians, since so many of them continue to justify their beliefs and actions by reference to the Bible.

That Christians have felt able to do this has historically allowed them to justify the oppression, torture, and killing of so-called heretics, apostates and other undesirables. Even such Christian luminaries as Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, and Luther felt justified in sanctioning such atrocious actions by reference to the Bible. Perhaps you feel better qualified then these religious scholars to determine how the Christian faith should be interpreted.

“But you still seem strangely hung up on the letter of the text.”

As I said previously, I am only responding to those Christians who insist on quoting chapter and verse in order to justify their beliefs and actions.

“Most Christians couldn't care less about Leviticus, frankly: they haven't read it, and wouldn't know what to make of it if they did.”

Let’s face it, most Christians have barely read the Bible at all. Rather, their epistemology consists of one of the varieties of Christianity that they have taken as an off-the-shelf package (most likely the one into which they were born), and then made their own unskilled adjustments to.

Beyond that, those people who tend to see the world in black and white terms, and who wish to justify their own tendencies towards intolerance and smiting their neighbours will find plenty of support in the Old Testament. They might further believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, will generally ignore the fact that it is full of contradictions and inconsistencies, and will have a faith that is largely unshakable in the face of contrary evidence.

On the other hand, those who see the world in much more grey terms, and who wish to justify their liberal tendencies will find more material in the New Testament. They will probably refer rather less to the Bible, as they are aware that it is a can of worms. However, they work very hard to come up with theological justifications for ignoring whole tracts of the Bible (including most of the Old Testament), and interpreting much of what remains. Nevertheless, when they do find something that they agree with, they will happily quote it – as if it can be used to justify some moral precept or other. This rather ignores the fact that it is rather ridiculous to attempt justify some moral or epistemological belief by reference to the Bible if, at the same time, they are forced to ignore all the passages that flatly contradict what they are saying. It is nothing but cherry picking. Anybody who attempted to do such things in other areas (science, law etc) by reference to other books would be laughed at.

Nevertheless, for atheists and people of other religions, they are far preferable to the first sort of Christian, since they are far less inclined towards oppression, torture, and killing. They are also far more likely to doubt their faith. Fortunately, in the more secular Western societies, this type of liberal Christian is currently in the majority.

Most Christians will then also go through such mental pirouettes as are needed in order to reconcile contradictions such as:

1. They believe that their god is onmibenevolent, but the god of the Old Testament is clearly described as a jealous, vindictive, petty, and bloodthirsty tyrant.

2. They further believe that their god is omniscient and omnipotent, and yet it allows a vast amount of human and animal suffering in the world – both man made and natural. The system created by their god is one in which animals must kill and eat each other in order to survive, and most humans and animals throughout all history have led short, painful, and brutish lives. They attempt to explain this away (theodicy) by appeal to such things as human free will (which, in the face of determinism is likely illusory, but is anyway irrelevant in the case of suffering caused by natural disasters etc.), or the benefits of suffering in terms of encouraging more virtue (an abhorrent idea that is just an entirely ad-hoc excuse, and anyway doesn't come close to justifying the vast quantity of suffering in the World, and its indiscriminate distribution. And, why should the cultivation of virtue or courage be worth all that suffering? Couldn't God just make us virtuous or courageous from the start?).

3. They believe that God wants us to understand his message, and thus to be saved. And yet, he only revealed this message to a tiny number of people in the distant past. Furthermore, this message was, or has become, confused and ambiguous. Moreover, the evidence for his existence is very weak. Hence, millions of people have never heard this message, or have rejected it. They will therefore not be saved, as they either have some other religion, or no religion at all. How could an all-powerful and all-loving god allow this state of affairs to persist?

4. They believe that their god would create a universe that is unimaginably old, huge, and lethal to life just so that one species of lifeform could eventually evolve on a planet orbiting an ordinary star – amongst countless billions of stars in billions of galaxies. The stated purpose of this lifeform’s existence is just to give praise to this god.

5. They believe that they can communicate with their god by means of prayer, but only seem to receive banal, unverifiable, or contradictory messages. For example, some are apparently told to help relieve human suffering, whilst others are told to rape and murder women.

6. To quote Richard Carrier, they believe that there is a "disembodied, universally present being with magical powers; that this superbeing actually conjured and fabricated the present universe from nothing; that we have souls that survive the death of our bodies (or that our bodies will be rebuilt in the distant future by this invisible superbeing); and that this being possessed the body of Jesus two thousand years ago, who then performed supernatural deeds before miraculously rising from the grave to chat with his friends, and then flew up into outer space." This they believe in the complete absence of any remotely compelling evidence.

7. They believe that their religion is the source of human morality, and that without it we should all lose our moral compass. This is despite the fact that such basic moral foundations as reciprocal altruism and prohibitions upon murder are present in almost all societies - primitive or complex, Christian or otherwise (and is even seen in some primate societies). Moreover, the Ancient Greeks had a very well developed ethical system long before the Christians came along. Further, there is very good data that shows a strong positive correlation between a society’s level of religiousity and the prevalence of all sorts of ills – crime, illiteracy, mortality rates etc. This doesn't necessarily imply a causual relationship, but it does completely undermine the idea that morality is dependent upon religion. More on the subject of morality here.

8. In the face of such weak reasons for believing in this god as opposed to any other, or to none, they say that unquestioning belief by ‘faith’ is a virtue. Moreover, those who choose not to believe by means of faith run the risk of everlasting torment in a Hell created by their omnibenevolent god. As St. Anselm of Canterbury said, theology is fides quaerens intellectum (faith seeking understanding). This neatly summarises its baselessness. Furthermore, why should this type of faith (i.e. belief contrary to, or in the absence of evidence) be seen as something that is intrinsically valuable? Why would God wish to cultivate such an apparently counter-productive tendency? Of course, it is very convenient when your central thesis is one that does run counter to the evidence.


“Law, I'm not so sure”.

On reflection, I’ll grant you that. Science is to me much closer to the ideal model for how to seek knowledge. To quote Richard Carrier (by the way, I would highly recommend reading the whole article), this is how it works:

“Long ago, people could make up any theories they wanted. As long as their theory fit the evidence, it was thought credible. But an infinite number of incompatible theories can fit the evidence. We can design a zillion religions that fit all the evidence, yet entail Christianity is false. And we can design a zillion secular worldviews that do the same. We could all be brains in a vat. Buddha could have been right. Allah may be the One True God. And so on, ad infinitum. But since only one of these countless theories can be true, it follows that the odds are effectively infinity to one against any theory being true that is merely compatible with the evidence. In other words, not a chance in hell. Therefore, we cannot believe a theory simply because it can be made to fit all the evidence. To do so would effectively guarantee our belief will be false.

Fortunately, people came up with what we now call the scientific method, a way to isolate some of these theories compatible with all the evidence and demonstrate that they are more likely to be true than any of the others. The method works like this (and this is very important): first we come up with a hypothesis that explains everything we have so far observed (and this could be nothing more than a creative guess or even a divine revelation--it doesn't matter where a hypothesis comes from); then we deduce what else would have to be observed, and what could never be observed, if that hypothesis really were true (the most crucial step of all); and then we go and look to see if our predictions are fulfilled in practice. The more they are fulfilled, and the more different ways they are fulfilled, the more likely our hypothesis is true.

But that isn't the end of it. To make sure our theories are more likely the true ones (as any old theory can be twisted to fit even this new evidence), they have to be cumulative--compatible with each other--and every element of a theory has to be in evidence. We can't just "make up" anything. Whatever we make up has to be found in the evidence. For example, when Newton explained the organization of the solar system, he knew he was restricted to theories that built on already proven hypotheses. Every element of his theory of the solar system was proved somewhere, somehow: the law of gravity had an independent demonstration, the actual courses of the planets were well observed and charted, and so on. Nothing in his theory was simply "made up" out of whole cloth. He knew the data on planetary behavior had been multiply confirmed. He knew there was gravity acting at a distance. The rest followed as a matter of course.”

Of course, science is a human endeavour, so it is inevitably subject to such human failings as jealousy, petty rivalries, deference to authority, dogmatic attachment to one’s pet theory etc. However, and this is very important, science is ultimately self-correcting. That’s what makes the scientific method so useful.

Furthermore, and contrary to what the layman might believe, all of science’s theories and laws are only provisional. No matter how well accepted a theory is, and how many times it has passed rigorous testing, the evidence may still be found to refute it. As Popper said, any proper scientific theory should be falsifiable. Hence, scientists are (or should be) never entirely sure of any scientific knowledge. By contrast, what would it take to falsify your Christian belief and cause you to reject it (if, as I assume, you are a Christian)?

“It's about the sort of person who craves certainty, I suppose”

I suspect that you are alluding to the ubiquitous view amongst theists that atheists are fundamental in the disbelief in God. However, in my case (and of other atheists that I know), I am not certain that the Christian god doesn’t exist. Rather, I believe that the arguments for the existence of Christian god in particular (as opposed to some inscrutable universe-creating intelligence) are very weak. They are either logically flawed, or require the inclusion of huge numbers of entirely ad-hoc assumptions in order to square them with the evidence. This process makes the theory unfalsifiable, since the appearance of more contrary evidence will just be explained away by inventing more ad-hoc assumptions. Moreover, the arguments against the existence of the Christian god in particular are very strong.

Hence, I see no reason to favour the existence of the Christian god over an infinity of other gods (or universe-creating intelligences) that I could make up. So, whilst I am not sure that the Christian god doesn’t exist, I consider this likelihood to be so remote as to be safely discounted as an explanation for the existence of us and the universe. The fact that millions of people believe it to be true makes it no more likely to be so. Since millions of religious people have mutually exclusive ideas of creation, it is guaranteed that millions of them are wrong. I would argue that they are all wrong.

The latest scientific thinking is pointing towards the idea that our universe may be just one in an infinite ensemble of island universes that may have always existed. However, we may never be able to know this for sure. So, questions about the any meaning in the existence in the universe may never be answered. In fact we may never know if asking questions like this make any sense at all. On the small scale, we may never be able to penetrate to the smallest constituents of matter, or even know whether such constituents exist. So, in the face of such uncertainty, I am humble in my lack of knowledge. However, I still think that in the (possibly fruitless) search for answers, the concepts of the universe-creating Christian god can be effectively discounted.

“Hang on a minute. How much oppression, torture and killing have Christians been doing lately? That was years ago. Always with the Inquisition”

I think that history, together with a cursory look around our world today, confirms that any totalitarian regime with a dogmatic attachment to a belief system inevitably leads to the oppression, torture, and murder of certain of its citizens. This was the case with Stalin’s Soviet Union, Mao’s China, Hitler’s Germany, and any number of past and current theocracies. The power of Christianity in the West has been very much reduced during the last few hundred years. However, when it had more power, it used it to enforce conformity to its rules (often under pain of death). Evidence from current theocracies (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan etc.) suggests that this tendency is still alive and well. Even in the States, whilst a lack of religion won’t get you killed (unless at the hands of some lone fundamentalist), it is used in all sorts of insidious ways to make life difficult for atheists. In a recent survey, atheists were identified as the most hated minority in American society.

What I and other atheists are on our guard for is any evidence of a slide away from a secular society, as that is the route away from Enlightenment values such as equality and freedom of speech. We need to be very careful to preserve an effectively secular state (not atheist but secular), as this gives the greatest freedom for all – religious and non-religious alike. If any one religion achieves too much power, then human nature dictates that it will inevitably attempt to coerce others into adherance to that religion.

By the way, it is a fallacy that the atrocities of the communist states in the 20th century are the inevitable result of atheism. Atheism is not an ideology; it is just the absence of religious belief. What happened under Stalin and Mao were the results of totalitarian regimes that held a dogmatic attachment to communist ideals, and set their leaders up as quasi-gods. What I would propose instead is a secular state that is run along humanistic lines. To paraphrase Sam Harris, nobody was ever killed because we became too reasonable.

“I'm not sure about that either. In the sense that they doubt they have all the answers, certainly”

That is indeed what I mean. It seems to me that some liberal Christians must have an unresolved conflict going on in their minds. They would like to believe in some of the fantastical tenets of Christianity (existence of God, virgin birth and resurrection of Jesus, heaven etc.) despite the lack of any good supporting evidence but, in the final analysis, can only justify doing so by means of faith.

Biblical Interpretation

This post is in response to a post on Stephen Law's blog - see here. Stephen was referring to a book called Outrageous Tales From the Old Testament, and somebody left a comment to say that:

"...I would just like to say that I find that Christian fundamentalists and secular fundamentalists read the bible in the same way. How do they read it? Entirely without sophistication, unable to appreciate irony, humor, metaphor, or purposeful moral ambiguity. They leave everything they may have ever learned about literature behind them..."

Comments along these lines are often heard from liberal Christians, who believe that the Bible requires their particular interpretation in order to be understood correctly. Here is my reply:

There are a number of problems with such interpretation in general, including, but not limited to the following:

1) Many Biblical passages containing contradictions, absurdities, atrocities, or intolerance of one sort or another are, on the face of it, explicitly clear in their meaning, and are not really open to any alternative interpretations.

2) It might be someone's opinion that such and such Biblical chapter or verse should be interpreted metaphorically or ironically. However, the onus is surely upon this person to justify why the passage should be interpreted in such a way, and not as it is explicitly written. For example, try to do this with the following Biblical quotes:

"He that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him." -- Leviticus 24:16

"They found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. ... And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones.... And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses." Numbers 15:32-56

"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Exodus 22:18

“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” Lev.20:13

“Whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.” 2 Chronicles 15:13“

“If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die.” Deuteronomy 13:6-10

“If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.” -- Deuteronomy 21:18-21

3) It is evident that the Liberal Christian only feels the need to ‘interpret’ those passages in the Bible that do not accord with our current knowledge and morality e.g. those containing absurdities or preaching intolerance or hatred.

4) If we are to allow the text of the Bible to be interpreted in such a subjective and personal way, then how are we to discriminate between what can and can't be interpreted in a way other than it is written?

For example, perhaps the rejoinders in the Bible to do good were meant to be ironic, and not to be taken literally? Perhaps the resurrection of Jesus was only metaphorical? Perhaps Jesus didn't exist at all, but was only a myth that was intended to be symbolic? Perhaps even the whole concept of God himself was meant to be interpreted metaphorically?

5) For me, as an atheist, I have no qualms about ignoring what is written in the Bible, as I consider it a ragbag collection of myths, superstitions, historical events, and often highly dubious morality. However, surely the self-professed Christian does not have this luxury?

For example, if God actually does exist (as the Christian must believe), and did explicitly command that Sabbath breakers (or gays, or witches, or people of other religions) should be stoned to death, and the liberal Christian ignores this injunction (thinking it to be ironic or metaphorical), then surely they are running a terrible risk? For, if this command was not intended to be interpreted or ignored, then the liberal Christian risks spending an eternity in Hell? To rework Pascals' Wager, if the Christian unnecessarily keeps the Sabbath, then they have little to lose. However, if they mistakenly do not keep it, then they risk an eternity in Hell.

Furthermore, if these commands were issued by God, then who do the liberal Christians think they are to presume to know better than an omniscient and omnipotent being?

And, on a lighter note, here is a bit of fun to finish with.