Another Scientist Snookered By Supernaturalism? What's The Lowdown On Marcelo Gleiser?

Marcelo Gleiser: Worthy scientist, or pseudo-scientific dupe?

For those unaware, Marcelo Gleiser is  a 60-year-old Brazil-born theoretical physicist at Dartmouth College.  He's also a prolific science popularizer who  has won this year’s Templeton Prize. Valued at just under $1.5 million, the award from the John Templeton Foundation annually recognizes an individual “who has made an exceptional contribution to affirming life’s spiritual dimension.” 

But is that a scientific achievement, or a pseudo-scientific one? Say like being awarded astrology's top prize for casting the most accurate horoscopes in a given year.   One also has to express some dismay at the spectacle of all that money being awarded for a spurious prize, i.e.  for "affirming a dimension" whose existence remains unproven.  To provide some perspective we can turn to physicist Jerry Coyne in his book,  'Faith Vs. Fact: Why Science And Religion Are Incompatible', p. 18:

"The Templeton Foundation distributes $70 million yearly in grants and fellowships. To put that in perspective, that's five times the amount dispensed annually by the U.S. National Science Foundation for evolutionary biology, one of Templeton's  areas of focus.  Given Templeton's deep pockets and  not overly stringent criteria for dispensing money, it's the wonder that - in a time of reduced financial support - scientists line up for Templeton grants."

Well, perhaps it's because they're that desperate for grant money - from any source- to support even marginal research, and thereby gain more name recognition.  Noteworthy also is Prof. Coyne's observation (ibid.) that " this support flows from a constant stream of conferences, books, papers and magazine articles, many arguing for the harmony between faith and  science ."  A trope I've already skewered in a letter appearing in Physics Today, i.e.

Readers' thoughts on science and religion: Physics Today: Vol 71, No 6

What about Gleiser himself? In a recent interview he knocked atheism, as one might expect from a Templeton prize recipient.  He said in response to one question:

"I consider myself an agnostic.I honestly think atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method. What I mean by that is, what is atheism? It’s a statement, a categorical statement that expresses belief in nonbelief. “I don’t believe even though I have no evidence for or against, simply I don’t believe.” Period. It’s a declaration. But in science we don’t really do declarations."

But the  basis of the Atheist-Materialist worldview is not denial   ('I don't believe even if there's no evidence for or against') but rather the essential redundancy of invoking supernatural artifacts and constructs.  This is important to grasp if one is going to debate or discuss Atheism in any kind of intelligent context.  In other words, the acceptance or belief in such artifacts does not help me make scientific predictions, say the occurrence of the next  auroral substorm or coronal mass ejection, so they end up being superfluous to the scientific process, not part of it.  But again we must not be surprised that Gleiser here parrots the twaddle of so many other supernatural apologists, i.e.

https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/PT.3.3831



This bunkum was published in the January, 2018 letters section of PT, and thankfully, Jerry Coyne again delivered a timely response (as I had), e.g.

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2018/02/02/tom-mcleish-continues-his-accommodationism-in-physics-today/

Fortunately, most hard science practitioners are like  Coyne and me, and have no use for this nonsense. See e.g.  cosmologist Sean Carroll's take here:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/05/i_won_t_take_money_from_templeton_science_and_religion_can_t_be_reconciled.html

But  another beef I have with Gleiser is his adoption of the generic  "agnostic" brand as if that confers on him some rational, objective, superior position. In fact it doesn't.   The reason is that the basis for agnosticism is epistemological - to do with knowledge- not belief or lack thereof.

To fix ideas here, agnosticism is not a third alternative to theism and atheism because it is concerned with a different aspect of mental affect. Theism and atheism refer to the presence or absence (withholding) of belief in a god; agnosticism refers to the impossibility of knowledge with regard to a god or supernatural being. Since the agnostic posits an impossibility of knowledge he then justifies his recusing himself from any belief based on it.

Further, the term 'agnostic' does not, in itself, indicate whether or not one believes in a god. Agnosticism predicated on the "impossibility of knowledge" can be either theistic or atheistic in manifestation. The agnostic theist believes in the existence of a god but maintains the nature of god is unknowable. The agnostic atheist maintains any supernatural realm is inherently unknowable by the human mind. And further - not only is the nature of any supernatural realm, (e.g. "Hell") unknowable, but the existence of any supernatural being is unknowable as well.

So, we have these initial distinctions:

1) The pure agnostic disdains any belief in a deity based on an absolute impossiblity of knowledge.

2) The agnostic theist BELIEVES in the existence of God, but argues it's useless to attempt to elaborate any divine nature (e.g. all-powerful, all loving, all knowing etc.) because the knowledge basis isn't there to permit such assumptions.

3) The agnostic atheist asserts all transcendents are unknowable and hence their existence is as well, so belief is impossible since it requires a leap of faith not warranted by reason alone.

So one may conclude that Gleiser is likely of agnostic category (2), an agnostic theist - but not a pure agnostic.    One of the other most telling parts of his interview is when he stated:

"I think obviously the Templeton Foundation likes all of this, because this is part of an emerging conversation. It’s not just me; it’s also my colleague the astrophysicist Adam Frank, and a bunch of others, talking more and more about the relation between science and spirituality."

Yes, so he's gratified there are these continuing "emerging conversations" which, of course, fuel more and more yen to spread the science and spirituality  cum supernatural mythology and grafting for the Templeton Foundation grants and prize.  But my take, and Coyne's as well as Carroll's, is that such claptrap fuels the diversion of ever more money to codswallop and pseudo-science.  If astronomers, for example, could net just one half of what Templeton gives away in a year to peddlers of nonsense, it could support the word of dozens of tenure track researchers.  In other words, monetary prizes such as awarded to Gleiser, including the whole  framework for giving them, is funneling support from truly worthy research in genuine science.  I do agree with Gleiser when he avers:  

"Right now what we know is that we have this world, and we are these amazing molecular machines capable of self-awareness, and all that makes us very special indeed. And we know for a fact that there will be no other humans in the universe; there may be some humanoids somewhere out there, but we are unique products of our single, small planet’s long history.

So we have the moral duty to preserve this planet and its life with everything that we’ve got, because we understand how rare this whole game is and that for all practical purposes we are alone. For now, anyways."

A sentiment with which any Atheist-Materialist would certainly concur!

What Prof. Keith DeRose Gets Wrong About God Claims (Part 2)

I continue now with the commentary on Keith DeRose's interview with Gary Gutting:

De Rose:

"To know that God does (or doesn’t) exist, you have to show that there are no arguments for atheism (or for theism) that a reasonable person could find plausible. But to support that claim you would have to have better critiques of all those arguments than I’ve ever seen. In my view, it’s more likely those who claim to know whether God exists — whether theists or atheists — are just blowing smoke."

Again, DeRose regurgitates the "claim to know" nonsense which embodies the cartoon version of atheism.   What we atheists actually say is that the whole idea of God is redundant – logically unnecessary – because it doesn’t help us to model any physical systems or make verifiable, empirical predictions. The closest to what De Rose identifies as atheism here more relates to explicit atheism which maintains there can never be any evidence for a God because the natural sciences can have nothing to do with the supernatural. (I.e. "Supernatural evidence" is an oxymoron)

 

The gist of it is that the atheist maintains the probability is very high that there is no ultimate force out there, and we are on our own. (Which is precisely the point Carl Sagan made in the last segment shown of the final new COSMOS episode ('Unafraid of the Dark'), with the focus on the 'pale blue dot' of Earth.)

 

The issue then isn't one of "knowing" but instead efficacy in the real world. What benefit is there - apart from emotional security - of God belief if there is no active demonstration of the object of belief in the outside world? This is the core theme that DeRose won't touch because he knows he can't get anywhere with it.

 

Prof. Gutting then asks him:

"Without getting into details, could you mention a theistic and an atheistic argument that you think a reasonable person could find plausible?"

He responds:

"My favorite theistic example is the cosmological argument, particularly as William Rowe discusses it in his “Two Criticisms of the Cosmological Argument.” This is the argument that tries to show that we need to posit God as the reason the universe exists. Negatively, it’s clear to me that this argument does not really establish its conclusion. For it to work you have to accept a quite strong form of the Principle of Sufficient Reason (roughly, the claim that everything must have a reason). This principle is just too questionable for an argument based on it to produce knowledge. And, like Rowe, I in fact don’t buy it."

Of course,  De Rose is correct that the cosmological argument does not really  "establish its conclusion".  Which would be near impossible in any case  since quantum mechanical  models (e.g. T. Padmanabhan,  ‘Universe Before Planck Time – A Quantum Gravity Model, in Physical Review D, Vol. 28, No. 4, p. 756)  show the cosmos can come into existence on its own via quantum fluctuation.. Once physical models exist then one doesn't need supernatural explanations and should refrain from invoking them.  See also:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/09/yes-universe-created-itself-from.html


DeRose is also wise not to buy into the 'sufficient reason' bollocks because numerous philosophers, e.g. Mario Bunge (cf. Causality and Modern Science, pp. 33-34, 1979) , have shown it is defunct. A much more fruitful path is to present necessary and sufficient conditions  for one's claims.  The criteria of necessary and sufficient conditions was actually invoked originally by Galileo to replace the concept of efficient cause (ibid., p. 33). In this regard, it was recognized from early on that "efficient causation" was often too limited or narrow a concept to be practical or workable.

Robert Baum, in his textbook, LOGIC, p. 469-70, correctly observes that n-s conditions are practical replacements (in logic) for causes. In other words, instead of saying or asserting "x caused y", one stipulates that a, b are necessary conditions for x to exist at all, and c, d are sufficient conditions for y to have been the sole effect of cause x.

Baum’s reasoning is clear (ibid.): because “cause” (generic) can be interpreted as proximate or remote, or even as the “goal or aim of an action” and is therefore too open-ended, ambiguous and construed in too many different ways. Thus, “cause” is too embedded in most people’s minds with only one of several meanings, leaving most causality discussions unproductive and confused. If my “cause” and your ‘cause” in a given argument diverge, then we will not get very far. Also, if we confront a disjunctive plurality of causes, we may be at moot dead ends using a naïve causal paradigm.

Anyway, DeRose Goes on:

"But positively, given the state of the philosophical discussion, which has produced good responses to the apparently knock-out objections, someone could certainly be reasonable in accepting the argument. This view has been cemented in place for me since I came to Yale, because my colleague Michael Della Rocca is a terrific, and very sensible, advocate of quite strong forms of the Principle of Sufficient Reason. He has never convinced me to join him in his rationalist ways, but because of him I would be willfully blind to think that even someone who understood the issue extremely well could not reasonably think as he does."

But note that one would expect DeRose by this point to at least adopt some rationalist way! In effect, we'd like to see him present the necessary and sufficient conditions for God's existence but he hasn't. I believe the reason might be that, again, he has not been willing to define the God he refers to in his exchange. Without the definition it isn't possible to supply the n-s conditions which will depend on the entity's nature.

Gutting next asks him:

"How about an argument against God’s existence?"

He replies:

"I’m going to have to be conventional here and go with the usual suspect: the argument from evil. Without getting into any details, you can feel the force of the argument by choosing a suitably horrific example (the Holocaust, children dying of cancer) that leads you to say, “There’s no way a perfectly good God would have allowed that!” There is a huge, often fascinating, discussion that tries to refute such arguments. But I find this intuitively powerful case does stand up to scrutiny, at the very least to the extent that someone could reasonably accept it at the end of the day. I suspect that even God thinks there is something wrong with you if you are not at least tempted by such an argument from evil."

 Here, DeRose is quite wrong that the "argument can't stand up to scrutiny to the extent someone can reasonably accept it". In fact, examined from one definition of the deity (and bear in mind DeRose has carefully avoided defining the God to which he refers) it's abundantly evident how and why it fails. This definition is provided we allow the attribute of "design" along with one of the omni properties: omniscience.

Then we can treat first natural evil, then human evil and trace it back to the designer.  If the former is emphasized, such as the 2004 Indonesian tsunami that took out 240,000 people - or the Haiti 2010 earthquake, then it doesn't beg the question to ask whether in fact the world was not properly designed for humans ab initio. I mean, if it was then we'd not see such enormous disasters with vast loss of life. If the world wasn't properly designed then whose fault is that? It must be the designer's, the same as it's the automotive designer's fault for a GM car that won't brake properly or accelerates when one puts the keys in the wrong way.

But perhaps mass killer earthquakes, tsunamis, killer hurricanes  etc. are no one's fault since no designer exists that would or could have made a habitable planet without them. The same applies to human evil, which actually inheres in the structure of the human brain itself, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/12/want-better-future-then-evil-brains.html

 In other words, if a designer God is responsible for fashioning the human brain then he must be ultimately responsible for human evil. But....it could be the brain is simply the product of evolutionary accident, in which case we'd expect the hodgepodge tossing together of ancient atavistic regions (e.g. R-complex)  with newer ones (neocortex).

This leads the rational skeptic to conclude that both forms of  evil (natural and human) mean  that either the world (and cosmos by extension) is not the product of a “designer” at all (in which case no God exists by one set of criteria) OR: the world and cosmos is the product of a putative, supra-physical agent that is likely incomplete and whose actions are constrained by being manifest in an incomplete, evolving universe. (This is the Socinian deity first advanced by Socinus, which posits a creative intelligence that can never know more than the most advanced of its created, conscious "wetware".)

In the former case, we’d more likely side with Leibniz, who opined that "natural disasters aren’t the result if any divine punishment for sin” but simply the foreseen (or better, foreseeable) consequences of a regulated and overall consistent system of natural laws.

In the latter case of the limited but supra-physical agent it was the philosopher N.M Wildiers who first observed:

“Evil is part and parcel of a world in evolution, an incomplete world.”

Meaning that in an imperfect world governed by evolution, we must expect evil as essential to an incomplete natural order.  We must therefore not expect divine intervention because the supra-physical agent version of God himself is “working things out” amidst a sea of polarities in the relative domain of physical reality. (This is also part of the "God Theory"  of Bernard Haisch).

All the above is meant to show how crucial definitions are when one discusses the possible existence of God. Even a tiny change in definition in terms of the attributes assigned can totally turn the discussion or debate in one or other direction. Yet DeRose steadfastly refuses to provide anything to work with, leading me to conclude his avoidance of defining "God" must be intentional. It allows him to be evasive and prevents Gutting from pinning him down. (Aside: some may aver here that "God cannot be defined" in any case, which in one philosophical context is true. BUT...if we are going to debate or discuss claims for God's existence that won't do. Since a logical treatment involving existence claims presumes the use or acceptance of propositions bearing defined objects, then we must provide the definitions. If we refuse to then we need to take the Buddhist way out and say: "No discussion  (or interview) is possible because the reality is beyond the use of words to limit or parse it".  This means all claims for it are as well.)

Prof. Gutting does his best to press DeRose further:

"So far, you’ve argued that both atheists and theists can have good reasons for their views, so that neither side can rightly claim that the other is just irrational. But you make an important distinction between reasonably believing something and knowing that it’s true, and you claim that neither atheists nor theists know whether God exists. Finally, what do you think of agnosticism, the view that, given the strong disagreement about theism, the most reasonable position is to remain undecided?

De Rose replies:

"In some ways, that view is right. One reading of “agnostic” is just someone who does not take herself to know. On that reading, I accept the view. After all, my suggestion is that those who are not agnostics in that sense are deluded! But “agnostic” often slides into meaning something more along the lines of someone who does not take a position on the issue, and is in that way “undecided,” as you put it. And while I certainly think someone could easily be, and many people are, reasonable in being an agnostic about God in that stronger way, there are important goals served by our taking stands on issues where we cannot be objectively certain, or even know that we are right."

Here, at least, DeRose comes closer to parsing the meaning of agnostic - but not completely. In fact, an agnostic atheist is exactly someone who withholds belief until there is evidence for a claim. A pure agnostic is one who asserts there is an impossibility of ever knowing enough to confer belief.  He subscribes to the tenet that our brains are simply not up to the capacity to ever be in such an ultimately knowing position.  Thus, the belief that an agnostic is simply someone who refuses to take a stand on an issue is wrong. De Rose is correct that there are "important goals in taking stands on issues" but this has nada to do with being an agnostic. One will "take a stand" if s/he is able to parse necessary and sufficient conditions for a claim (including a defined deity) and then see that the claim is inconsistent with the conditions set out. One would not simply "take a stand" out of an emotional or simply belief position.

At least Prof. Gutting asks him:

"Could you explain that more fully? If you don’t know you’re right, why take a stand?"

De Rose responds:

"In philosophy and other areas of controversy, like politics, we often come to adopt a view on a disputed matter. When this happens, then even if you recognize the reasonableness of contrary views, you can come to really feel that your view is right, to the point that it can feel as if you know that it’s true. And I think that taking such a strong stand on a disputed issue can be good. Those who take a strong stand may most effectively develop and defend their position. I don’t think it would aid philosophy or politics if we all quickly abandoned our positions whenever we hit significant resistance from well-informed opponents. Often, that’s just when things get interesting."

But DeRose again misses the point that the areas he references generally require the adoption of views based on logical analyses - and this almost always entails examining the necessary and sufficient conditions. If those aren't met, one rationally won't "take a stand". One doesn't take a position merely out of an emotional incentive or "feeling" or having watched "Fox and Friends".

For example, I take a position to reject unregulated market capitalism because I understand that the resources of the planet are inadequate to fuel and support the level of growth market capitalism demands. If one then runs the numbers, this becomes evident. It isn't a matter of simply "taking a stand" without any basis.

In politics, I take a position to reject money as "free speech" because it automatically puts voters in an inferior position and owners of capital  (and corporations) in control of our political process.

In philosophy, I take a position to reject Ayn Rand's Objectivism because it simply can't work. Taking 66  million seniors immediately off of Social Security and Medicare will not make the nation better, or make people better, only create an additional vast poverty class. This is apart from the fact that there simply don't exist the decent paying jobs to support such a move, nor will there ever be. (15 million citizens even now remain under-employed and the monthly jobs numbers, such as they are, barely reach population replacement level- estimated at 200,000 per month.)

Yes, one can "take a stand" but there must be a logical, rational basis to do so.

Prof. Gutting again:

"But is the existence of God just a philosophical question, like, say, the definition of knowledge or the existence of Plato’s forms?"

De Rose responds:

"The existence of God is not just any philosophical issue. It’s intimately tied up with what very many in our society feel gives meaning to their lives. As compared with other philosophical issues, many, including many professional philosophers, are especially protective of their position here. And on God’s existence, I think many are subject to often subtle, but also often powerful, pressure from their religious groups to feel and to act and even to try to be certain of their position.

This no doubt creates special dangers. But it also seems that a life of religious faith can lead us to special values we can’t find elsewhere. At any rate, this too is a philosophical issue. In light of all that, I would not want to make any blanket pronouncement, either about philosophers or people generally, that the most reasonable stance on the existence of God is to stay on the sidelines."

 DeRose does at least get it right that  discussions of philosophical issues such as God's existence are fraught with enormous emotional overtones and baggage - including a need for existential security.  No one denies here that a profound need to believe in a higher power exists, and for the majority of human brains the very idea of cosmic isolation - or a universe without higher purpose - is unthinkable. But this emotional driver alone is not sufficient to justify philosophical claims for existence.

I may feel, for example, more comfortable in the cosmos if intelligent extraterrestrials also existed within it. But I can't make a claim for their existence unless hard evidence is forthcoming - at least intercepted radio signals which bear a definite mathematical pattern such that they could only have been produced by intelligent aliens.

In the same way, though people may feel "God gives meaning to their lives" - they can't just make a claim for such without providing evidence, or at least proposing necessary and sufficient conditions for the Being they want to exist.  I am not saying here that the cosmos is not imbued with a higher consciousness or intelligence, it well might be (as I indicated in my book, 'Beyond Atheism, Beyond God'). What I am saying is that you cannot arrive at any objective truth for such an entity merely by invoking emotional appeal or needs.

It is a pity that DeRose himself didn't deliver more substance - as opposed to ambiguous rhetoric - in his interview with Prof. Gutting.

Surprise! A Fundie Is Incapable of Understanding the English Language!

It seems there is a persistent and irascible (also under-educated)  little fundie who still is unable to parse or grasp the distinction of the agnostic atheist – in terms of withholding belief in a deity. He evidently read my previous blog on fundies unable to process these subtle distinctions- leading his febrile brain to go haywire once more, and end up with the wrong conclusion.  But this is to be expected when one's educational standards have always been low, and the person in question is more at home in a bar fight than a classroom.

So, it seems we must explain it to him again, not that it’ll do any good – especially if one lacks the capacity for abstract ACH thinking. (As an aside, it’s clear this character couldn’t pass a PSAT Verbal test, far less a GRE Verbal test!)

 

Recall I had written:

“What is happening here is not active disbelief, i.e. in making a statement “There is no god,” but rather simply passively withholding belief in a statement already made. Hence, the deity believer has made the positive claim. The ontological   (implicit) atheist’s  response is simply an absence of belief in it. No more and no less. It does not and never has implied  active disbelief, aggressive rancor or a vehement and militant opposition to the beliefs.

Let me quickly add here that this withholding of belief is the more natural position, as opposed to advocating belief, which is unnatural.”

 

Now, believe it or not – probably not – this dumb fundie demands:  “make up your mind” i.e. “Is it withholding belief or absence of belief’?.’ This guy, who’s probably had too many knocks on the head either from bats in bar room fights or from DI pugil sticks, thereby interjects a false dichotomy (thought he likely doesn't know what that means either).  Clearly he doesn’t grasp that they amount to one and the same thing.

 

If I withhold belief what am I doing? Am I actively DO-ing anything? No! Despite the word, it is a passive act.  However, the consequence of the withholding is yes, the absence of belief in the claim.

 You tell me you have an alien in your attic but you can’t prove it or give me a snap shot, so I withhold belief. I do not “deny” you have such an entity, only tell you that minus the evidence I can’t bestow any investment of mental capital to concur with it.  Hence, you walk away minus that belief, and so for you - there is an ABSENCE of my belief. How simple can it be? But evidently it's like general relativity or advanced rocket science for this moron fundie.

Again, via any withholding, what is the EFFECT? The effect is an ABSENCE of that which is withheld!  (See for example the cartoon graphic pertaining to the doofus withholding Jacks from his playing card deck but claiming there's no absence of them in his deck.)  Ipso facto, by any withholding one has engendered an ABSENCE of that withheld.  This absence could not have existed if one didn’t withhold.  Why the inability to process the logical connection? I suggest a lack of ACH thinking ability, which as James Cheyne has observed, is also a critical feature of many standard IQ tests.

The error made by this fundie lamo is to equate “withholding” belief to an active response, as opposed to an absence of belief.  In his incapacitated, regressive and forlorn brain, withholding is like denying! He doesn’t grasp that there is a logical and fundamental connection between withholding and absence -of whatever it is withheld.

 

The Webster’s Encyclopedic Dictionary defines withholding as:

“to refrain from granting or giving something”

 

It defines absence as:    “a lack or deficiency of”

 

And continues by way of explicating: i.e. to withhold granting something will create a deficiency or lack in it, for example withholding food- say to a starving populace-   creates a deficiency or absence of food.

 

In other words, a logical connection obtains between the words. Now, it is true that by use of the term “withhold” the causal consequence, i.e. directly leading to absence may not be immediately apparent, but it ought to be implicit.  At least it ought to be to a person of  even average intelligence. But then this guy was never even minor sub-Mensan level (e.g. top 20% as opposed to 2%) to begin with. (He may be Densan, or lower 40%).

On that note we shall have to leave it because though this deluded idiot believes he’s “checkmated” me he’s really only shown the extent to which he’s checkmated himself by stupidly entering a semantics war he isn’t outfitted  (educationally or intellectually) to win.  Maybe if he sits down and plays computer chess or GO he may improve his intellectual prowess, but given his only activity is blogging misinformation about his backward religious beliefs....I wouldn't make any bet that would work

 

The point remains that withholding belief in a deity is the warp and woof of the agnostic atheist, and it is correlated to an absence of belief - no matter how much hard heads want to contrive a ridiculous false dichotomy where none exists.

 

Can We Hope to Educate Fundies on the Different Types of Atheist?

In approaching the fundamentalist brain, one thing one must perpetually keep in mind is its inherent simplicity and the incessant demand for simplicity. Thus, rather than acknowledging the Big Bang as the source for inception of the cosmos the fundie will invent 'young Earth' and 'young Sun' nonsense because it's simpler. After all, you needn't learn about the physics of the Big Bang including the significance of the 2.7 K isotropic microwave radiation  -- you need only invoke the fairy tale of 'Adam & Eve'.

In a similar vein, in approaching evolution the dumb, semi-educated fundie will usually cherry pick one aspect to try to make hay out of (like the 98% chimp-human sharing of DNA) but entirely ignore the more difficult aspects such as that: 1) chimps and humans share the exact same cytochrome-c protein sequence despite 10^93 different possibilities for variation, and 2) the fact that the ape 2p and 2q chromosomes underwent telomeric fusion to become the '2' chromosome in humans. 

But this is what we've come to expect from  a lot that still believes ancient fables such as that a man could survive 3 days in a whale's belly (or 'great fish') despite it being full of hydrochloric acid, or that an 'Ark' could have been constructed to carry pairs of all the critters then on Earth including dinosaurs.

So it's not a surprise to learn that most also lack the intellectual capital or ability to appreciate the distinctions between atheists.  After all, it's simpler just to assume ALL atheists are of one type, e.g. "militant" if they even write something negatively about Xtianity.  Their pea brains fail to understand that writing something negative, say in a blog, is NOT the same thing as demanding the extirpation of religion - even fundy-ism.

Nor do these clowns grasp the distinction between agnostics and atheists. So we are obliged to help them out, and try to express some sympathy too.

Author George Smith[1] notes that the most vernacular usage confuses the meaning of agnostic, usually asserting it is “somewhere between belief and outright unbelief.” The way it is usually framed is that the agnostic “isn’t sure whether or not God exists.”  In fact this is an erroneous interpretation of the term.


What it actually, technically means is someone who asserts there is not yet adequate evidence to make a decision if one were possible. In other words, the issue must remain open-ended and unresolved until such time evidence appears. Thus, true agnosticism is not some dithering or fence-sitting between belief and unbelief, but rather acknowledgement of the impossibility of knowledge as it pertains to any ability to address the question in the first place.

But mayhap this is far too complex for the simplistic gray matter of fundies.

Smith himself (op. cit., p. 9) splits and parses the agnostic position even further, according to whether one is an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. The first avers that all supernaturalist propositions or claims are inherently unknowable (because they are untestable) by the human mind, and so not worth discussing any more than pink elves, unicorns or fairies. In this sense, unbelief isn’t really even necessary, since who would actually believe in a pink elf or unicorn? Well, then there’d be even less merit to arguing over an invisible Being! Thus, without any capacity for knowledge about it, it’s redundant.


The theist agnostic meanwhile, maintains a firm belief in the existence of God, but asserts the precise nature of this God is unknowable. On this basis, no attributes are assigned to try to define God’s nature.  We cannot say that any divine nature is “eternal”, or “omnipotent” or “omnipresent” because one simply doesn’t know. Thus, it makes no sense to use words to try to describe a deity. Belief is as far as one can go.

Related to definitions of atheists is the ability to distinguish between implicit and explicit atheists. In many ways, the implicit atheist is similar to the agnostic atheist except for the fact the kmowability or otherwise of supernaturalist propositions is not gone into. Thus, the implicit atheist simply avers to be withholding belief in any kind of deity already on offer by the theist. (The explicit atheist, by contrast, rejects it outright.)

As I noted in an article published in the Mensa Bulletin, March 1994:

"Let's be clear about what constitutes Atheism and what doesn't. The Atheist - to put it succinctly, absolutely withholds investing intellectual/emotional resources in any supernatural claim. Indeed the word Atheism itself embodies this definition: a-theos, or without god.”

What is happening here is not active disbelief, i.e. in making a statement “There is no god,” but rather simply passively withholding belief in a statement already made. Hence, the deity believer has made the positive claim. The ontological   (implicit) atheist’s  response is simply an absence of belief in it. No more and no less. It does not and never has implied  active disbelief, aggressive rancor or a vehement and militant opposition to the beliefs.


Let me quickly add here that this withholding of belief is the more natural position, as opposed to advocating belief, which is unnatural. Consider a different context: a neighbor runs over and informs me that aliens have landed in his yard in a spacecraft. Until I actually go over and try to verify his claim I am under no obligation to accept it as a statement of fact. Thus, the default intellectual position is always skepticism, irrespective of the claim made. This again is because the onus is always on the claimant to make good, not the skeptic to “disprove” it.

It isn’t difficult to see from the above context that the more conservative (and reasonable!) position is withholding belief until a claim is validated. One does not, after all, accept a claim then do further research. One ab initio doubts the claim and then sets out to devise tests to ascertain the validity!  And in the case of extraordinary claims (which certainly include “God” and visiting aliens in spaceships), “extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence” as the late Carl Sagan used to emphasize.

 

It also isn’t difficult to see that this is exactly analogous to the atheist withholding belief in a deity. After all, If God genuinely exists, why is he/she/it not uniformly perceptible,  at least in basic features, to all peoples? As we saw in previous blog posts (from 2011, mainly), there are nearly as many different versions of deity as there are people. (Or at least, religions!)

Another error made by the wayward fundie is assuming that a negative belief, i.e. that there is no God, is the same as being a positive belief, 'there is a God'.  An example of this would be what Lisa Kennedy spouted on a Bill Maher Real Time show in January, 2012, i.e.  if an atheist simply doesn’t believe in the supernatural or God he is expressing a belief, albeit a negative one. If expressing a negative belief, then it's the same as a positive belief such as invoked in religions, ergo he is professing a religion. This is utter nonsense.


It would be akin to asserting that if I decline belief in ghosts I still have “negative ghost belief” and therefore am a Ghostologist ! The error inheres in asserting that an absence of belief is the same as a belief. This error repeats the canard that the onus is on the non-believer to disprove the believer’s claim, instead of acknowledging it is impossible to prove a negative. Some sophists attempt to get around this by claiming it  "isn’t impossible to prove a negative". They argue that they can prove “there are no black balls” in a box by simply emptying the box out and finding all white balls. But this misrepresents the example, since the possibility of “all white” balls was never in question! The analogy is specious because the existence of God IS in question, and isn’t objectively verifiable, unlike counting real balls. The analogy trivializes the deity existence question while not validating the sophist.

In the end, it may be that because the brains of fundies are unable to perform ACH thinking - or what James Cheyne  has called abstract, categorical and hypothetical thinking (such as integrated into standard I. Q. tests, e.g.  the Raven's and Wechsler Similarities tests) then they cannot also be expected to discriminate between subtle differences in definitions, say for 'atheist'.

Why are believers, fundies especially,  missing this crucial component of thought which also, by the way, is essential for critical thinking? There are a number of reasons. For example, one may be that the honing of such skills was never possible, for example if they came from a home schooling environment. Another, more controversial, is that the very neural pathways that predispose them to belief or faith, are also the ones that inhibit predictive ACH conceptualizing. Lastly, it's feasible they may have suffered head injuries, maybe from a DI - using a pugil stick-- in the Marine Corps at Parris Island, and they never got their senses back together.

Sadly, if any of these is true we can be sure they will always take the simpleton path in their thinking as regards atheists and atheism.

---

[1]  George Smith, Atheism - The Case Against God, 1989, Prometheus Books, p. 9.

Atheists Need to Back Off In Their 'War on Christmas'

One of the early cards designed by American Atheists to help promote the meme that Christmas is a myth.


As we approach another Christmas holiday, and word has gone out that American Atheists has put up a forty foot billboard in New York to advance the 'war on Christmas', the outside observer can't help but note how this plays right into the Right wingnuts' hands: "Looka there! Ya see! The liberals and atheists are all together in this waging a war on Christmas!"

Of course, this is bollocks but many may not see it that way. And as atheists are still seen as the 'bad guys' in the country (polls show only a minority would vote for one as President) they can ill afford to be further smeared. The way out is to find allies, preferably progressives, who will unite with atheists for a defined common good. Maybe that is fighting for a better health care system, or decent living wages, or even Elizabeth Warren's latest campaign to have employers back off doing credit checks on prospective employees.  The point is atheists risk being marginalized unless they link up to larger social causes besides waging a myopic  "war on Christmas". It makes them look detached from the larger society and foolish.

The historical reasons for why atheists have waged this war are well known, at least among atheists and most freethinkers. Ancient Rome had essentially made its peace with the indigenous Christians - thanks to the Emperor Constantine (274 - 337). Recall that Constantine was the de facto head of the Sol Invictus cult for which December 25th was celebrated as "the Birthday of the Unconquered Sun".

In reality, this referred to the Winter Solstice, or that date in the year when the Sun was at its maximum declination below the celestial equator (now calculated to be at -23.5 degrees). At the same time, it was the date at which the Sun would begin its journey back north along the ecliptic to meet the celestial equator by the time of the Vernal (Spring) equinox. This northward march meant geometrically longer diurnal circles, hence the winter solstice marked the astronomical date when days began getting longer - hence a solar "re-birth" in a manner of speaking.

By selecting December 25th (the date of the ancient winter solstice)  as the nativity of Christ, the Church repaid Constantine for his generosity (via the "Edict of Milan" issued in 313, which not only permitted Christians the freedom of religious worship and their religion's recognition by the State, but also reparations for previous losses, such as having property confiscated). In other words, the choice sealed a continued basis for accommodation and cooperation between Rome and Christianity and also empowered the latter - providing the impetus to become the religion of the then civilized world.


Less well known, is that the ancient religion of Mithraism was also well-entrenched in Rome by the time of the Christian choice of December 25th, and indeed, they (Mithraists) also celebrated that date as the nativity of the Lord Mithra. (See, e.g. the book, Pagan Christs. )   In this respect, the American Atheists are quite correct and December 25th does not exist as any uniquely holy date, hence for all intents is a myth. In this sense, "myth" means: an unproved collective belief that's used to justify a social institution. If one therefore is going to celebrate a nativity - he should (for history's sake) go the whole hog and celebrate it not only for Yeshua, but the Lord Mithra, as well as the Roman god, Sol Invictus. They all share that date, and all are entitled to acknowledgement.

For many atheists, the issue is elementary: they simply acknowledge the date as that coinciding with the ancient Winter Solstice and mark it purely as an astronomical event. Yet socially we may well celebrate with family and friends and even exchange gifts, but this is part of a recognized habit or custom. Hence, when atheists declare "Christmas is a myth"  they're charging wholesale into an established religious -commercial quagmire where they're not only seen as attacking religious beliefs, but customs too. It's a no win game.

Atheists by doing this also reinforce the belief that they are always against things and never stand for a positive value.  In his brilliant article Atheism Wars[1], the eminent economist John Gray, author of False Dawn- The Delusions of Global Capitalism,   argues:


Contemporary unbelief is a hollowed –out version of monotheism- a cult of human deliverance lacking the beauty and flashes of wisdom of traditional faiths. Defined properly, it is an entirely negative position. An atheist is anyone who has no use for the concepts and doctrines of theism

This is an honest take, and is also perhaps why Gray declares himself an atheist in the proper meaning of the term, as I do. That is, one who simply withholds belief. I provided the original definition, of what later came to be known as implicit atheism, in a Mensa Bulletin letter. That definition read[2]:

Let's be clear about what constitutes Atheism and what doesn't. The Atheist - to put it succinctly, absolutely withholds investing intellectual/emotional resources in any supernatural claim. Indeed the word Atheism itself embodies this definition”

 

What is happening here is not active disbelief, i.e. making a statement 'There is no god', but rather simply passively withholding belief/acceptance in a statement already made.  Hence, the deity believer has made the positive claim. The ontological atheist’s is the absence of belief in it. No more - no less.

Reading John Gray’s excellent essay showed me that my position is genuinely more implicit atheism, or what George Smith described as agnostic atheism, than the more hard-edged variety of Ayn Rand, or Madalyn Murray-O’Hair. In Smith’s words:

The agnostic atheist maintains any supernatural realm is inherently unknowable by the human mind. And further - not only is the nature of any supernatural being unknowable, but the existence of any supernatural being is unknowable as well

This more open or implicit basis also backs the atheist away from a hard-edge, intolerant stance. It also opens the way for positive cooperation with others of a liberal mindset.  As I  noted in my first atheist book, The Atheist's Handbook to Modern Materialism,  this paved the way for positive alliances for advance of social justice, such s Paul Kurtz defined in his (2000) 'Humanist Manifesto'.


Hard-edged,  take no prisoners atheism is also a loser philosophically, as I have noted in my new book, Beyond Atheism, Beyond God. Therein I noted the "Camus conundrum"
discussed by Greg M. Epstein ( Good Without God, p62) to do with Albert Camus’ novel, The Plague.  The essence is embodied in a question Camus’ character Jean Tarrou asks his friend, Rieux:

Why do you show such devotion considering you don’t believe in God?

 

Epstein puts this in a contemporary setting, referencing a 2006 book tour by Richard Dawkins for his God Delusion. According to Epstein,  Dawkins was somewhat startled when a young man approached him and asked directly: "Dr. Dawkins, I am thinking of committing suicide, what do you have to say?

 

Epstein relates that initially Dawkins was so nonplussed he could think of nothing to say,  then suggested the young man (a student at Harvard) could go to the humanist chaplain or – if he’d been at Oxford, he could go to the Anglican chaplain.  In understandable astonishment, Epstein observed (ibid.):


"Is that the best we can do? Rage, rage against the dying of the Enlightenment then shoo our troubled youth back to religion because we’re too distracted or cerebral or both to spend a few minutes of our deep thoughts on being more loving and more helpful?"
 

Let’s be clear the Camus conundrum highlighted in modern form by Epstein isn’t just a problem for Dawkins.  I am certain that in a similar situation, all the current hard core crop of atheists (including those waging wars on Christmas) would be at a loss for words. Overly obsessed with combat against the "believers"  and their myths they'd have lost sight of the human dimensions.

 

In regard to the "war against Christmas" we need to bring those dimensions into focus as well, and whether we are familiar with the historical basis for Christmas or not, understand that by trying to extinguish it  we are exercising a futility similar to Dawkins in his response to the Harvard student. The atheist meme and philosophical foundation survives,  not by making more enemies or alienating more people, but by finding common cause with others to ennoble the human condition and not degrade it.

 

---

[1] Gray: Playboy (60), 49.

[2] Mensa Bulletin, March (1994), 8.