There's a tactic sometimes used by apologists to claim that some religious text is believable, and it's if the text in some parts describes the central character, who is otherwise revered, as making mistakes or somehow flawed, or shows weakness.
They reason that if the writer were just inventing the story of a religious figure, who should be revered as a prophet of God, or even God himself, surely they wouldn't attribute any fault, mistake or weakness to this person. That such descriptions attest to the veracity and believability of the narrative, ie. that it's describing real events rather than fictional ones.
This kind of reasoning has one big flaw: It assumes that writers in antiquity were unable to come up with fictional stories where the characters are described in a realistic way, even if those characters are supposed to be heroes to be revered.
This highly underestimates the literary capabilities of people in the past. Even to the point, I would say, of being outright insulting.
Talented writers were not stupid even millenia ago. They knew how to write, they knew how to appeal to the reader. They knew how to give credibility to their characters.
It seems that the thought doesn't occur to these apologists that, perhaps, the author deliberately describes the fictional character as flawed precisely for the purpose of making the story more believable and engaging. In other words, perhaps the author did have some genre savviness, and was talented at storytelling.
Intelligent writing is not a phenomenon exclusive to modern times. People have been quite clever for millenia.
(Another quite real possibility is that the author simply didn't think of attributing flaws of weaknesses to the main character as something to be avoided, but just as part of normal storytelling.)
Wednesday, June 5, 2013
Neil deGrasse Tyson and agnosticism
Neil deGrasse Tyson is one of the living people in this world that I admire the most. He's a brilliant astrophysicist, he is extremely intelligent, sharp and eloquent, and who can express himself incredibly clearly and understandably, yet never sounding patronizing (ie. like he's "dumbing down" what he's trying to say in order to make more common people understand.) He knows how to speak, he has an amazingly good ability to popularize science, and he always has excellent arguments.
There is only one thing that I have to criticize him for. It's nothing of much importance, but it still bothers me a bit. And it's his stance on atheism vs. agnosticism (and whether he considers himself one or the other.)
From what he has spoken on the subject, I'm completely certain that he knows perfectly well what the accurate meanings of the terms "atheism" and "agnosticism" are (and it would be pretty presumptuous from me if I were to claim otherwise.) However, regardless of this, he still willingly chooses to use them in the incorrect manner, seemingly just to avoid controversy.
To clarify, and make sure that there's no misunderstanding: The popular view among many people (especially theists) is that there's a range of world views with respect to believing in God. On one extreme we have theism, on the other we have atheism, and right in the middle we have agnosticism. It is also a popularly held view that both theism and atheism are world views with their own dogmas and ideologies. Agnostics are like those who don't care or don't want to take a stance on either side.
This, however, is completely wrong. Theism vs. atheism is a true dichotomy: You are either a theist or you are not. If you are not a theist, then you are an atheist by definition. Gnosticism and agnosticism describe a completely different category of philosophy, namely that of views about knowledge. A gnostic is someone who is certain that knowledge is possible, eg. on the existence of gods, while an agnostic is one who either denies having exact knowledge on the subject, or even claims that certain knowledge is not even possible. Gnosticism/agnosticism are in no way mutually exclusive with theism/atheism. All four combinations of them are perfectly possible positions. Moreover, what's popularly called "agnostics" are by definition atheists. Saying "I'm not an atheist, I'm an agnostic" is like saying "I'm not a human, I'm a man." It makes no sense.
Also, there is no "atheist dogma." Atheism is a personal stance on the existence of gods, nothing more. If you don't believe in their existence, you are an atheist by definition. It doesn't matter what other world views you might have. You may be a Buddhist or a Raelian if you want, but if you don't believe in the existence of gods, you are also an atheist. That's the very definition.
As said, I'm convinced that Mr. Tyson knows all this perfectly well. However, he still chooses to ignore it, and use the popular, mistaken meanings. He has explicitly said that he wants to distance himself from the "atheist community" because he doesn't think like them (in a context where he means that he doesn't want to fight for the word "God" to be removed from dollar bills and so on.)
It just sounds to me like he wants to avoid describing himself as "atheist" and instead uses "agnostic" for the sole reason that the latter causes less controversy among the general populace than the former. It doesn't matter what those words really mean, what matters is the impression they give.
I could perhaps understand this if it weren't for the fact that in most other topics Mr. Tyson has no qualms in being as controversial as it gets. For example, he has given excellent lectures on the "god of the gaps" argument, he has no qualms in talking against religious nonsense, and so on. In other words, he doesn't seem to worry if he's displeasing religious people in other subjects, except this particular subject of terminology, which I find strangely inconsistent.
If he really wanted to avoid controversy and upsetting people, I don't think he would be attacking the god of the gaps and other similar arguments, and giving lectures against intelligent design and religion. I'm really glad he does, but I just find it a bit inconsistent.
There is only one thing that I have to criticize him for. It's nothing of much importance, but it still bothers me a bit. And it's his stance on atheism vs. agnosticism (and whether he considers himself one or the other.)
From what he has spoken on the subject, I'm completely certain that he knows perfectly well what the accurate meanings of the terms "atheism" and "agnosticism" are (and it would be pretty presumptuous from me if I were to claim otherwise.) However, regardless of this, he still willingly chooses to use them in the incorrect manner, seemingly just to avoid controversy.
To clarify, and make sure that there's no misunderstanding: The popular view among many people (especially theists) is that there's a range of world views with respect to believing in God. On one extreme we have theism, on the other we have atheism, and right in the middle we have agnosticism. It is also a popularly held view that both theism and atheism are world views with their own dogmas and ideologies. Agnostics are like those who don't care or don't want to take a stance on either side.
This, however, is completely wrong. Theism vs. atheism is a true dichotomy: You are either a theist or you are not. If you are not a theist, then you are an atheist by definition. Gnosticism and agnosticism describe a completely different category of philosophy, namely that of views about knowledge. A gnostic is someone who is certain that knowledge is possible, eg. on the existence of gods, while an agnostic is one who either denies having exact knowledge on the subject, or even claims that certain knowledge is not even possible. Gnosticism/agnosticism are in no way mutually exclusive with theism/atheism. All four combinations of them are perfectly possible positions. Moreover, what's popularly called "agnostics" are by definition atheists. Saying "I'm not an atheist, I'm an agnostic" is like saying "I'm not a human, I'm a man." It makes no sense.
Also, there is no "atheist dogma." Atheism is a personal stance on the existence of gods, nothing more. If you don't believe in their existence, you are an atheist by definition. It doesn't matter what other world views you might have. You may be a Buddhist or a Raelian if you want, but if you don't believe in the existence of gods, you are also an atheist. That's the very definition.
As said, I'm convinced that Mr. Tyson knows all this perfectly well. However, he still chooses to ignore it, and use the popular, mistaken meanings. He has explicitly said that he wants to distance himself from the "atheist community" because he doesn't think like them (in a context where he means that he doesn't want to fight for the word "God" to be removed from dollar bills and so on.)
It just sounds to me like he wants to avoid describing himself as "atheist" and instead uses "agnostic" for the sole reason that the latter causes less controversy among the general populace than the former. It doesn't matter what those words really mean, what matters is the impression they give.
I could perhaps understand this if it weren't for the fact that in most other topics Mr. Tyson has no qualms in being as controversial as it gets. For example, he has given excellent lectures on the "god of the gaps" argument, he has no qualms in talking against religious nonsense, and so on. In other words, he doesn't seem to worry if he's displeasing religious people in other subjects, except this particular subject of terminology, which I find strangely inconsistent.
If he really wanted to avoid controversy and upsetting people, I don't think he would be attacking the god of the gaps and other similar arguments, and giving lectures against intelligent design and religion. I'm really glad he does, but I just find it a bit inconsistent.
Tuesday, June 4, 2013
Creationists are getting desperate
In antiquity the world seemed extremely vast and mysterious. The vast majority of even educated people had only a very limited understanding of their surroundings. Most of what they knew about the world fell under a distance of a few thousands of kilometers at most. Vast seas, mountain ranges, deserts and other insurpassable obstacles both limited exploration and caused the rest of the world to be full of mysteries.
It's no wonder that these gaps in knowledge were promptly filled with fantastic stories of imaginary creatures and godlike beings. Gods were said to live in unreachable mountaintops, under the sea, beyond oceans, and beyond the clouds in the sky.
As human technology progressed over the millenia, we got to explore those previously unreachable places. We reached all mountaintops, we navigated to the other side of the vast ocean, we dove deep under the sea, and we flew high above the clouds. And there were no gods. (There were some fantastic creatures sometimes, but they quickly became rather mundane after discovery.)
Thus the gods receded from us to even farther and more unreachable places. When the whole world had been explored and no gods were found, the gods receded to space.
Then we examined space outside the Earth with better and better instrumentation, and we even sent telescopes to space to see better.
And no gods were found.
Thus the gods receded even more. Now they are outside of this universe, or in other dimensions, or other completely unreachable places (that might not in fact exist.)
In the same way the role of gods in the working of the universe has changed over time. In primitive times gods caused fires, thunderstorms, floods and earthquakes. Then we studied those phenomena and discovered that actually they work by entirely natural means. No godly intervention is necessary.
Then perhaps our immediate surroundings in this planet work by entirely natural means, but surely the rest of space requires divine intervention? Even Isaac Newton, when he failed to understand how the solar system can be stable, attributed it to divine intervention.
Then we studied this further and discovered that it works by entirely natural means. No gods are necessary to explain it.
Ok, planets and rocks are simple objects. But what about life? Surely life couldn't have appeared by these same natural mechanisms that make planets orbit our Sun? Surely the intricacies of living organisms is way too complex to be able to work via natural laws only?
And we studied life, and we discovered how it works, and that no divine intervention is necessary. We understand how living organisms function, and we understand where they come from.
Gods are receding very fast from us, to unreachable places. In the case of life, they are receding to the past. Surely even if life can be explained now, that doesn't mean that the origin of life billions of years ago can be explained by natural means?
Gods always go farther and farther from us. To the outside of our universe, to another dimensions, billions of years to the past... always somewhere that's very difficult for us to observe and examine.
And as science keeps progressing and progressing, it keeps pushing the gods farther and farther. We are starting to slowly get a grasp of how the universe may have formed, we are slowly getting a grasp of how life formed from non-life, we are slowly starting to understand better and better what happened in the distant past and why, we are starting to understand how the universe works from the extremely little to the humongously large.
As time passes, creationists seem to be getting more and more desperate. Decades ago almost nobody cared much about creationism, not even creationists themselves, save for a few exceptions. In recent times creationists are getting scared because of the trend of science pushing their gods away, and are counter-attacking. Science was once just shrugged away, just a curiosity. Now it's something scary, and must be attacked. If nothing else helps, it must be attacked via legislature, censorship and propaganda. Science must not be allowed to push the gods even further away from us than they already are.
Some try to hijack science. They try to reverse the reasons of why science has progressed so much and make the bold claim that religion is precisely the reason for scientific progress, and that it's "evolutionism" that has impeded it, completely reversing the actual events. Apparently, since science is too valuable to be completely shut off, the next best thing is to try to hijack it and convert it to creationism. Maybe that way it will stop pushing the gods away.
I fear that as science progresses, it's only going to get worse.
It's no wonder that these gaps in knowledge were promptly filled with fantastic stories of imaginary creatures and godlike beings. Gods were said to live in unreachable mountaintops, under the sea, beyond oceans, and beyond the clouds in the sky.
As human technology progressed over the millenia, we got to explore those previously unreachable places. We reached all mountaintops, we navigated to the other side of the vast ocean, we dove deep under the sea, and we flew high above the clouds. And there were no gods. (There were some fantastic creatures sometimes, but they quickly became rather mundane after discovery.)
Thus the gods receded from us to even farther and more unreachable places. When the whole world had been explored and no gods were found, the gods receded to space.
Then we examined space outside the Earth with better and better instrumentation, and we even sent telescopes to space to see better.
And no gods were found.
Thus the gods receded even more. Now they are outside of this universe, or in other dimensions, or other completely unreachable places (that might not in fact exist.)
In the same way the role of gods in the working of the universe has changed over time. In primitive times gods caused fires, thunderstorms, floods and earthquakes. Then we studied those phenomena and discovered that actually they work by entirely natural means. No godly intervention is necessary.
Then perhaps our immediate surroundings in this planet work by entirely natural means, but surely the rest of space requires divine intervention? Even Isaac Newton, when he failed to understand how the solar system can be stable, attributed it to divine intervention.
Then we studied this further and discovered that it works by entirely natural means. No gods are necessary to explain it.
Ok, planets and rocks are simple objects. But what about life? Surely life couldn't have appeared by these same natural mechanisms that make planets orbit our Sun? Surely the intricacies of living organisms is way too complex to be able to work via natural laws only?
And we studied life, and we discovered how it works, and that no divine intervention is necessary. We understand how living organisms function, and we understand where they come from.
Gods are receding very fast from us, to unreachable places. In the case of life, they are receding to the past. Surely even if life can be explained now, that doesn't mean that the origin of life billions of years ago can be explained by natural means?
Gods always go farther and farther from us. To the outside of our universe, to another dimensions, billions of years to the past... always somewhere that's very difficult for us to observe and examine.
And as science keeps progressing and progressing, it keeps pushing the gods farther and farther. We are starting to slowly get a grasp of how the universe may have formed, we are slowly getting a grasp of how life formed from non-life, we are slowly starting to understand better and better what happened in the distant past and why, we are starting to understand how the universe works from the extremely little to the humongously large.
As time passes, creationists seem to be getting more and more desperate. Decades ago almost nobody cared much about creationism, not even creationists themselves, save for a few exceptions. In recent times creationists are getting scared because of the trend of science pushing their gods away, and are counter-attacking. Science was once just shrugged away, just a curiosity. Now it's something scary, and must be attacked. If nothing else helps, it must be attacked via legislature, censorship and propaganda. Science must not be allowed to push the gods even further away from us than they already are.
Some try to hijack science. They try to reverse the reasons of why science has progressed so much and make the bold claim that religion is precisely the reason for scientific progress, and that it's "evolutionism" that has impeded it, completely reversing the actual events. Apparently, since science is too valuable to be completely shut off, the next best thing is to try to hijack it and convert it to creationism. Maybe that way it will stop pushing the gods away.
I fear that as science progresses, it's only going to get worse.
Sunday, June 2, 2013
Saturday, June 1, 2013
12 steps to demonstrate Christianity as true
In the introduction of the book I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, authors Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek give a 12-step summary of how they demonstrate that there is credible evidence for the theistic god described in the Bible. These are the most typical apologetic arguments, and there are lots and lots of extensive refutations for them out there, but I thought I'd write briefly, equally as a kind of summary, why the arguments are flawed.
The twelve arguments are:
Moreover, even if the beginning of the universe were caused by some form of god, that doesn't mean said god still exists, or that there was only one.
And this is assuming that such eyewitnesses actually existed. In reality, the very existence of the vast majority of those eyewitnesses is a claim made by the New Testament itself, making this a blatant circular argument. ("The New Testament is reliable because there were eyewitnesses. There were eyewitnesses because the New Testament says there were.") It is perfectly possible (and even probable) that the authors of the New Testament made things up.
But even if there were such a passage, there's nothing that would indicate it to be factual. It would, once again, be circular logic: The Bible is true because the Bible says it's true.
The twelve arguments are:
1. Truth about reality is knowable.This sounds more like an assumption, not an argument, but whatever.
2. The opposite of true is false.A tautology is not an argument. It's a tautology.
3. It is true that the theistic God exists, as evidenced byThe beginning of the universe is an unknown, and arguing for the existence of any god, much less a theistic one, from an unknown is just a blatant argument from ignorance.
a. the beginning of the universe
Moreover, even if the beginning of the universe were caused by some form of god, that doesn't mean said god still exists, or that there was only one.
b. the design of the universeThe argument from design makes very spurious and unjustified assumptions about the alleged "design" of the universe (there are very good scientific reasons to believe that the universe is not designed at all, so simply assuming that it was is unjustified.) And again, even if it were purposefully designed, that doesn't tell us whether a god still exists, there was only one, or even if it was theistic.
c. the design of lifeSame as above. Completely unjustified assumption, there are very good scientific reasons to believe that there is no design, and even if there were, it tells nothing about what possibly designed it or if it even exists anymore. Moreover, even if life were designed, there's no indication that it was a god that did it.
d. the moral lawUnjustified assumption that there is a "moral law" outside of what humans as a society has come up with. Also, even if there existed such a thing, there's nothing to indicate that whatever came up with it is actually any kind of god, or is what caused this universe to exist.
4. If God exists, then miracles are possible.This is just outright faulty logic. Even if a god did exist, the possibility of miracles is in no way an automatic consequence of that.
5. Miracles can be used to confirm a message from God.Again, completely faulty logic. Even if miracles did exist, we don't know what causes them. A connection to a "god" is completely unjustified. (Also, even if they were caused by a god, there's nothing that would indicate that this god created the universe or us, or if there was a creator god, that it's the same god.)
6. The New Testament is historically reliable, as evidenced byEyewitness testimony is anything but reliable, and there's ample empirical, testable evidence for this. Claiming that something is reliable because of eyewitness testimony is one of the worst argumentative mistakes that one could ever make.
a. early testimony
b. eyewitness testimony
c. authentic testimony
d. eyewitnesses who were not deceived
And this is assuming that such eyewitnesses actually existed. In reality, the very existence of the vast majority of those eyewitnesses is a claim made by the New Testament itself, making this a blatant circular argument. ("The New Testament is reliable because there were eyewitnesses. There were eyewitnesses because the New Testament says there were.") It is perfectly possible (and even probable) that the authors of the New Testament made things up.
7. The New Testament says Jesus claimed to be God.This goes even further in the argumentative fallacy. The reliability of the New Testament can most certainly not be attested by how many eyewitnesses the New Testament itself claims there to have been. Moreover, even if there had been eyewitnesses, eyewitness testimony is unreliable in itself. And moreover, even if the testimony itself were reliable, that gives credence to only some parts of the New Testament. There may be some parts that really happened, while others are embellishments by the authors (if not outright fabrications.) There's absolutely nothing that would corroborate the claim that there indeed was a person in those times who claimed to be God, or that there was only one such person, or if any of these hypothetical people are actually the "Jesus" described in the story. (It's, for example, possible that the "Jesus" in the story is an amalgamation of several people, assuming he's not just outright fiction.)
8. Jesus' claim to be God was miraculously confirmed byI don't think it's necessary to repeat one more time what I have already written above. In addition to that, there's yet another problem with this argument: Let's assume for a moment, for the sake of argument, that all those events did indeed happen. On what basis were they caused by Jesus being God? Even if they did happen, we don't know how these things were achieved. We cannot jump from an unknown to a claim of godhood, or even to the existence of a god.
a. fulfillment of prophecy
b. sinless life and miraculous deeds
c. prediction and accomplishment of resurrection
9. Therefore, Jesus is God.Fallacious logic.
10. Whatever Jesus (who is God) teaches is true.More fallacious logic. Even if Jesus had existed, and even if he where a god, it doesn't somehow automatically follow that what he taught is true. (Even if a god existed, there's nothing that would stop him from lying to us.) This is just faulty reasoning.
11. Jesus taught that the Bible is the word of God.This is actually untrue even within the context of the Bible itself (making this argument quite astonishing, I must say.) What we know as "Bible" was not created but hundreds of years after his death (assuming he even existed) by the Roman church, and there is no mention of "Bible" in the Bible. Even the books of the New Testament were written long after Jesus' death, and this is something that even the most conservative Bible scholars agree with.
But even if there were such a passage, there's nothing that would indicate it to be factual. It would, once again, be circular logic: The Bible is true because the Bible says it's true.
12. Therefore, it is true that the Bible is the Word of God (and anything opposed to it is false.)By this point it shouldn't be necessary to repeat how many fallacies must be committed to arrive at this conclusion.
God exists = there is life after death?
Many apologists argue that without God there is no purpose to life, no meaning, no higher goals, and existence is meaningless and completely moot.
One question that this should raise but seldom does (even among skeptics) is why exactly would the mere existence of a god give life any "higher" meaning and purpose. What exactly is the connection between "a god exists" and "there is a higher purpose to life"?
What really is happening here is that these apologists are assuming that if there is a god, then there is also life after death (and it matters what we do while we still live, as it affects what happens to us after death.) But why exactly are they making this assumption?
After all, it could be perfectly possible for a god to exist, even one that did create this universe and knows about us and watches us all the time, and there not being any kind of afterlife. It is perfectly possible for there to be a personal god, and death being an absolute end of consciousness. It is perfectly possible for such a god to exist and for our life to be "completely meaningless" (in the sense that these apologists mean it) regardless.
In fact one could actually argue the exact opposite: If there is an afterlife, that makes our earthly lives meaningless, but if there is none, then that makes our earthly lives the most important thing that we have, something that should be cherished and appreciated while we have it.
One question that this should raise but seldom does (even among skeptics) is why exactly would the mere existence of a god give life any "higher" meaning and purpose. What exactly is the connection between "a god exists" and "there is a higher purpose to life"?
What really is happening here is that these apologists are assuming that if there is a god, then there is also life after death (and it matters what we do while we still live, as it affects what happens to us after death.) But why exactly are they making this assumption?
After all, it could be perfectly possible for a god to exist, even one that did create this universe and knows about us and watches us all the time, and there not being any kind of afterlife. It is perfectly possible for there to be a personal god, and death being an absolute end of consciousness. It is perfectly possible for such a god to exist and for our life to be "completely meaningless" (in the sense that these apologists mean it) regardless.
In fact one could actually argue the exact opposite: If there is an afterlife, that makes our earthly lives meaningless, but if there is none, then that makes our earthly lives the most important thing that we have, something that should be cherished and appreciated while we have it.
Pick-and-choose commandments
It's a quite well-known fact that Christians, especially those who claim to adhere strictly to everything in the Bible, who consider it the highest moral standard in existence, practice pick-and-choose morality. They will adhere to some commandments while completely ignoring others, even though there's absolutely nothing in the text that would justify this.
Let's take a couple of examples. For instance, the vast majority of such Christians just love this one, in Leviticus 18:
And it's not like these are two different categories of commandments. It's not like the text says from the first something like it being universal and extremely important, and from the latter that it's just some friendly advice that you might want to follow if you like.
In fact, both chapters start with the same words: "The Lord said to Moses, “Speak to the Israelites and say to them." There is no difference in context or tone, it's all part of the same speech, and there are no alleviating words or degrees of severity mentioned. There's absolutely nothing in the text to justify strictly adhering to one commandment but basically ignoring the other.
This is what we commonly call hypocrisy.
Let's take a couple of examples. For instance, the vast majority of such Christians just love this one, in Leviticus 18:
Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.Oh, how they love to hate, and how they love this particular passage, and how they love to try to impose this on others. But let's turn to the next chapter, and take another passage from there:
Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.Not a single Christian in existence cares about this passage. No Christian in existence is speaking out loudly against agricultural or fashion practices, claiming how they are immoral and against God's law, and rallying for law changes that would make them illegal. Moreover, most Christians don't follow these commandments themselves. Even if they know this particular passage, they simply don't care.
Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.
And it's not like these are two different categories of commandments. It's not like the text says from the first something like it being universal and extremely important, and from the latter that it's just some friendly advice that you might want to follow if you like.
In fact, both chapters start with the same words: "The Lord said to Moses, “Speak to the Israelites and say to them." There is no difference in context or tone, it's all part of the same speech, and there are no alleviating words or degrees of severity mentioned. There's absolutely nothing in the text to justify strictly adhering to one commandment but basically ignoring the other.
This is what we commonly call hypocrisy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)