Well, I’ve been tagged.And they say atheists never have any fun.
The evolution meme has got me, so the idea is I have to cite 5 posts of mine that demonstrate the evolution of my blog.
1. My very first post: My Gloat.I originally started posting on MySpace and the blog was just going to consist of anything I felt like ranting about.It was intended to be mainly light-hearted.As you can see, it is purely about football (American readers, read: soccer.Don’t get me wrong America, I think you’ve got a great nation but your bastardisation of the English language is hideous.You’ve got as much respect for pronunciation as Scientology has got for a pauper .)
2. My Job Offer to Creationists (I’m not counting that!) was a semi-humorous illustration of how absurd creationism is.I was still trying to keep a jocular nature to my blog but this was also something I felt strongly about and I felt I made my points very well without getting too serious.This trend of moving away from piss-taking and swearing, towards serious issues would continue:A post that I had intended to write for many years was my de-conversion story.I was invited to do so by Ebonmuse after I discovered his brilliant website soon after I de-converted.There are many sources I have to thank for my illumination and inspiration to write, Ebonmuse is one of them.This was an article that would have to be personal, intense, detailed, and ultimately incredibly optimistic, but also show the dark spell I went through where I was very much suicidal.This article was My Fall From Grace.It became easily my most-read article to date (it has since been overtaken by others.)This article was probably a turning point in my blog.My traffic boomed ever since and with so many regular readers I felt a responsibility to leave out the trivial and personal.What I mean is, talking about my day or personal hobbies was out of the question.If people were going to give serious time to read what I had to say, I knew I should provide good material and with an element of professionalism.
3. My Evanescence was a lovely title for an article if I do so myself.For one, it continued the nomenclature I had adopted (from Scrubs) for starting nearly all my articles with the word “My”, and also tied in nicely with the title of my blog itself!Two, Evanescence is a beautiful poetic word and it described perfectly the idea I wanted to convey: the transient and ephemeral nature of human life.Rather than be a depressing thought, this can be powerfully incentivising.There is no time to waste!Our lives are so short, so fleeting, that no day should be wasted!Instead of just ranting or destroying religion, I know I needed to include more humanist themes in my blog, and this was a progression in that direction.
4. Why Do I Bother? doesn’t start with “My”.This is a trend that continues; if it sounds right so be it, but I decided not to detract from an otherwise good title by forcing “My” for effect.This is a serious semi-angry diatribe about religion and the harm it causes.More importantly though, it’s directed to ignorant fence-sitters or the politically-correct who are afraid to put their money where their mouth is and speak up, or even worse those who think the topic is boring (prompted by a silly comment I received telling me to stop posting long boring articles about religion).It is impassioned and forceful, and something I couldn’t have written when I first started.
5. Criticising religion and faith, and promoting critical thinking and rationalism will always be primary aims of my blog.But how to capture the other end of the scale, the joy of rational thinking; the liberation of atheism; the beauty of humanity?Inspired by the great man (who I’ve met) Richard Dawkins, I wanted to express mankind’s place in the scale and timeframe of the vast universe.I wanted to write something as fascinating and fun to read as some of Dawkins’ work, and doing the research for it myself was very enjoyable.I also wanted it to show a greater move towards humanism on my blog.It’s all well and good destroying faith and teaching people to think logically, but what about hope?What about meaning to life and purpose?Humanism does help here, and I hope For the One Life We Have illustrates how we should all see things; as they really are.But rather than be a cause for concern, we should be inspired to make the most of our lives, those of the people we love, and those of the human race itself.
The 5 posts I’ve listed hopefully show the evolution of my blog: from capricious irrelevant joking to semi-serious rants, to de-conversion stories and impassioned attacks on religion, to explaining what atheism and humanism really means, to the real meaning to life and hope we all have.
My blog is not monolithic and the topics will always vary, as will the tone.But I hope now my blog has evolved to a point where I can capture all the moods of what has gone before and where I’ve arrived at; something that comes with experience, well-received praise and criticism, and regular readers without whom of course, no blog would exist.
Far be it for me to single out one particular ludicrous belief system, after all, it’s easy to laugh at talks of aliens, intergalactic rulers, thetans, Xenu, and cosmological conspiracies, but it’s just as easy to laugh at demons, devils, ghosts, gods, spirits, virgin births, triune divinities, talking snakes, or intelligent design.
My top three insidious ersatz religions of the world today are Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormonism, and Scientology.This is based on my opinion alone of course.I will discuss the other two another time, but explain a bit about JWs here.This is a subject I’m very familiar with.
This group was founded back in the 1870s.Now, say what you like about JWs, but they are proficiently versed in the bible, or at least their version and interpretation of it.I would definitely class them as fundamental Christians.They also reject core doctrines of mainstream Christianity, such as the Trinity, Hell, or the concept of an immortal soul. Whether you think this discounts them as “true” Christians depends on your interpretation of scripture (which not many Christians themselves can agree on).The concept of Hell was invented in the New Testament, and the Trinity is a pagan Babylonian teaching that you will find mixed support for in the bible itself.The idea of life after death and souls also came later; the Jews of the OT under Yahweh had no such beliefs.
JWs are generally very nice, law-abiding citizens.They also use their good reputation as a huge PR fillip.A favourite catchphrase is “if everyone in the world was like us, there’d be no war, suffering, violence, or hatred.”However, nothing could be further from the truth.
JWs merely demonstrate that when religion is small, powerless, and frightened, it keeps its head down, minds its own business, and preaches love and gradual assimilation.Whereas when religion gets big and powerful the result is oppression, totalitarianism, suffering, and death.At its zenith, religion doesn’t need to proclaim love and brotherhood, it simply threatens and forces its way to victory.Religion with power is very much like the Borg.What it cannot assimilate, it destroys.And with god on its side, it believes resistance is futile.
The commonalities between a sinister religious cult and a mainstream religion are core ridiculous myths.The differences are that whereas a mainstream religion has had centuries to integrate the absurdities into enlightened times, or convolute a series of ad hoc preposterous justifications for original nonsensical doctrines, cults like JWs resemble a badly written TV drama series: they have to keep the viewer entertained by constant cliffhangers, and because of the absurd claims and awful continuity errors, they’re forced to rehash original story, distort previous doctrines, lie, or suggest that if you have a problem with any changes, perhaps there was something wrong with your original understanding.(Jehovah’s Witnesses were clearly the role model for George Lucas when he made his Star Wars prequels.)
Here is a list of false prophecies, distortions, and lies of the JW society.This is an excellent website reviewing the current affairs of JWs.
My gripe is not that the Watchtower is consistently wrong (which it is), but that they rewrite their history and lie to their members.Their stance on organ transplants has changed at least twice, and they have publically eased off on the stance of blood transfusions.(I suspect hardly any rank and file members are aware that religious sanctions for accepting a blood transfusion are against EU law which the Society agreed to abide by.Does this stop JWs being disfellowshipped?I’d be very interested to know!)
JWs are sternly ordered not to review any apostate material (so it’s unlikely any of them would visit my blog anyway!) and unfortunately they are unlikely to give any critical literature the time of day.What a wonderful self-perpetuating trap.Aren’t the ones who most strongly censor those with something to hide?
One of the most overriding emotions of association with Jehovah Witnesses’ meetings and literature is boredom.This is because nothing new is ever produced.The society has been churning out the same old bilge for decades, but rehashing it in various forms.Every now and then a change in doctrine comes along (called “New Light”) which is either a minor or major change in what was believed all along.In other words, what was “true” ten years ago may be considered “false” today, and JWs are required to go along with whatever the latest understanding is.One might find something grotesquely Orwellian with terms like “New Light”, “New Truth”, and “Follow the society’s latest understanding, whatever that is”, flying about.Even Jehovah’s Witnesses’ parlance and euphemisms have an air of Newspeak about them.
Another unfortunate observation I have of Jehovah’s Witnesses is their low intelligence.You may think me rather arrogant or superior-thinking to say that, but the reality however is really just that simple.In general, attendees are not very well educated and not very good at logical thinking.A Big Brother who will tell you right from wrong and what to think, and even how to think, is no doubt comforting for these people.It is also this type of people who are most likely to be attracted to the ‘Party’ too, in my opinion.The Society takes advantage of this in its members.It undoubtedly encourages reading, writing, and talking skills, but this is just a means to an end.A JW who cannot be brainwashed through words or thought, and who cannot assimilate new members is useless.(If you doubt this, you ask a JW to give you the proper scientific definition of evolution, or the common arguments against the existence of god – you will get no response.This is because JWs are not trained to be experts on philosophy, or religion, or science, or debate, or discussion; they are trained to be experts at converting.)
Independent thought, excessive questioning, and free enquiry are unashamedly suppressed.Independence is openly denounced as a vice of The World (JW Newspeak to refer to “us”, the non-JWs who are wicked and will be destroyed, although JWs rarely openly admit this.Jehovah’s Witnesses therefore employ Doublethink quite a lot: pretending that people of The World may or may not be destroyed, yet simultaneously believing that they will).A newcomer will be welcomed to question freely, but once they are a fully-fledged member, this sort of honest enquiry is inappropriate.There is no room for unilateral opinion or thought; if you don’t agree with a Watchtower doctrine, you must learn to understand it or ‘wait until Jehovah reveals it’.
I’ve loved science since as far back as I can remember, and I was frequently flabbergasted by the scientific illiteracy demonstrated by the JW members I was surrounded by, and those who actually gave talks.I distinctly remember hearing one “Brother” on the platform saying something like:
“Scientists now are having second thoughts about the Big Bang, aren’t they?After all, if there was a big explosion, wouldn’t there be stars everywhere scattered all over the place?”
Whether he spoke for the Society or not is irrelevant; this sort of embarrassing ignorance sent alarm bells ringing in my head; would that anyone else in the congregation have known any better than the credulous speaker did . (Although I’m sure my mum did).Would it have been too much to ask for someone to cough out rather loudly: “GRAVITY!”?I guess so.
Those that fill positions of authority in the Organisation are not generally very intelligent in my experience, and a long familiarity with their literatures leaves me with the distinct impression that the Leaders themselves are either very unintelligent or incredibly deceptive.There is simply no way to explain the contradictions, reversals, deceptions, distortions, misquotes, and outright lies without assuming that the Society knows what it’s doing.There’s no greater example of this than their publication: “Life – How did it get here?By Evolution or Creation?”(In this day and age, the Society routinely churns out more strawmen and lies about evolution, whilst resorting to the Argument from Design that was exposed for the vacuous flotsam it was over a hundred years ago!)
Let me return to their claim that if only there were more people like them in the world it would be a much better place:
To live in a world of Jehovah’s Witnesses would be to live in a sterile ignorant Dark Ages.Freedom of speech and right of opinion would be the first to go.Next would follow the right to gamble.Sexual freedom?Not a chance.One partner, forever, in the one position.Sex before marriage? Gone.Homosexuality?Punishable by death.Dating?No, not unlessyou intend to marry.Science?Only if it doesn’t conflict with the Society’s understanding of scripture.(So, no then.)There would be only one train of thought: The Society’s.Any contrary viewpoint would be censored.
However, a world of JWs if their beliefs were true would be even worse!You would live in the worst possible land of totalitarian rule.Thoughtcrime would be a reality!Your entire existence would be based around worshipping another being every single day for eternity.Of course, no real progress in society, technology, or science would ever be made, because sooner or later some unfortunate fact about the real world would rear its head and have to be rejected by the Society, or incorporated into Newspeak and history would be retrospectively altered as though it was there all along.Paedophiles and more paedophiles would be protected by the Organisation.Evil sadists would go uncovered for years because of their long standing in the congregation.
The JWs are not the most dangerous (yet) of small cultish sects, but they are one of the most despicable and insidious. Not because of the unfortunate ignorant uneducated masses that count among the standard ranks, but because of the hateful fundamentalist dogma they believe, and because of how ignorant and backwards their followers are kept.The Governing Body has a lot to answer for, and I wonder how long they can keep putting Armageddon back and telling their members “any day now!It is just around the corner!”Perhaps forever?
But why would you want to escape a prison of lies when you are told the outside is a hopeless world of wicked evil sinners?What is independent thought when your own ideas and doubts are not to be trusted, and when your memories can be transformed by the revising history-altering publicists at the Watchtower Party?
“He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future.”
This is an interesting although melodramatic video. Unfortunately it ends with all the wrong messages: don’t choose JW’s god, choose another. Don’t believe the Jesus of JWs, believe the “real Jesus”. In other words, some people who leave JWs just replace one pack of superstitious lies for another. I couldn’t do that. (But then, my reasons for leaving were not because of the lies of the Watchtower, but because critical thinking excludes all religions, JWs included.)
Religion has nothing worthwhile to say on anything.
The ubiquity of religion, the respect it craves (and is indeed given), and the noble place for deep philosophical inquiry it is assigned, are out of all proportion with what it actually does and what it actually has to say.There is tendency to convolute inherently vacuous themes with extraneous rambling, wonderfully described here in reference to Physics Envy by the Humanities.
From the 17th to 19th centuries a great many scientists were religious.When theists point this fact out, I am baffled by its irrelevance.For centuries theism was the default worldview, and before Darwin came along this could be understood; although many intellectuals of the 19th century (like the Founding Fathers of the USA) were deists, if not strong agnostics or outright atheists already.
Even some non-religious people believe that religion has a role to play in society.But does it?What does religion have to say that is worth listening to?Let’s briefly consider some of the Gouldian magisterium supposedly covered by religion:
Morality: I recently wrote about this here.If you need punishment or reward to act humanely then you aren’t a moral person.If you believe hurting others and exploiting people is ok unless another being tells you otherwise, you are not moral.And if you can examine the good teachings of any belief then you must use your own moral sense to make any determination of it, which means such a moral sense already exists.Finally, if there is a god he is also bound by objective morality.
He is certainly not the first person to pose this challenge, but in all his religious debates he raises it to theists and is of course yet to receive an answer.I will therefore call it the Christopher Hitchens challenge: “Name one good thing that a religious person did that they couldn’t have done without their religion.”
And of course, no such person or action exists.
Meaning to life: First of all, even if religion gave genuine meaning to life, that wouldn’t make it true. And if it’s not true then it’s not genuine meaning. And if you’re going to include false beliefs that give people comfort, where do you draw the line? All religions offer some form of comfort. They all offer the ultimate prize: escape from death. In other words, they exploit innate human fears. But the comfort they offer is shallow and capricious.It is based on ignorance, faith and superstition, and these can only be negative in the real world.
Besides, if religion really cared about providing meaning to human life, then they would not be opposed to people acquiring that meaning from other sources.Since the comfort value of a belief is irrelevant to the belief’s veracity, and all religions offer this comfort, why are they are all mutually exclusive?Why do all religions claim that only they have the answer and no other belief system does?Because religion has absolutely no interest in human well being or a meaning to life.It exploits human fear to swell its numbers and win converts, and what meaning it gives to followers’ lives lasts only as long as a follower remains in the belief system.In other words, the comfort and meaning offered is a means to an end, with the end being the furthering of the belief system itself, instead of happiness itself.
Cosmological and transcendent questions: this is the biggest con of all.Religion has no deep answers.It doesn’t have the solutions to life’s mysteries.And it has nothing to say about science or the universe that hasn’t been updated in centuries.Indeed, a modern child of average education and intelligence would dwarf the combined scientific knowledge of any clergy through the ages.When the church in the dark ages blamed disease and illness on demons and black cats, a child of today could tell you about the germ theory of disease.
Whereas science has moved on, religion has not.It no longer makes explicit claims about the universe anymore (it never shied away from doing so before the advent of science!), but when it comes to metaphysical questions, and the “ultimate” mysteries it still thinks it has something to say, yet its answers are the same ones it was giving centuries, even millennia ago.
Richard Dawkins tells a story:
“I once reached this point when I asked the then professor of astrophysics at Oxford to explain the origin of the universe to me,” he says. “He did so, and I posed my supplementary: ‘Where did the laws of physics come from in the first place?’ He smiled: ‘Ah, now we move beyond the realm of science. This is where I have to hand over to our good friend the chaplain.’ My immediate thought was, ‘But why the chaplain? Why not the gardener or the chef?’ If science itself cannot say where the laws of physics ultimately come from, there is no reason to expect that religion will do any better and rather good reasons to think it will do worse.”
Society gives religion a respect it has done nothing to deserve.It is as though we’re trying to overcompensate for how little religion knows.It’s like when you sit around a table discussing something of importance, and you sense that it’s going over the head of one or two members of the group. You try to involve them, maybe phrase the conversation in terms they can understand, or ask their opinion.This is all well and good in a debate where everyone has something meaningful to offer, or with friends where sociability is more important than final answers.But in real life, why do we offer religion a place at the table?Whilst the rest of us debate genuine philosophy, science, literature, art, culture, politics, and morality, religion sits there twiddling its thumbs, waiting for a chance to quote scripture from memory, offer a life-changing panacea, or condemn those who disagree.In our politeness and slight embarrassment, we throw religion a bone and ask its opinion, and we’re always sorry we did afterwards.Religion has become the drunken embarrassing old uncle at a party, trying to tell the same old jokes and offer fatherly advice whilst being blissfully unaware that it has long since soiled itself.
When a debate is shown on TV, usually people from all viewpoints are gathered, some for and some against a position.They will be experts in the relevant field; geography, history, politics, or social science.Perhaps a head of state, an ambassador, the chief of police, or a community leader.But they will have spent years gathering experience in their field; perhaps decades being educated and forming a mature opinion based on years of research and labour.Along with them another position is invited to the table: the one that has done no research and no investigation.It has no knowledge or expertise on the subject at hand.What it has is an unusual level of respect in society, yet all it can do is repeat words written thousands of years ago by people who had far less knowledge of the world than today’s average child.This position is the religious one.
Have you ever watched a debate where someone is asked to give an opinion from a religious perspective? It is nearly always useless. I get that same sense of cringing embarrassment one feels when watching bad auditionees on the X Factor or Pop Idol.I can’t decide whether to laugh or cry as I peer through my fingers.Perhaps the real object of pity however should be the learned expert who actually knows what he’s talking about who has to debate the intellectual flotsam sitting across from him (or her of course).
Religion is the paradigm living example of the Emperor’s New Clothes.You can dress it up in invisible metaphysical garb.You can use an ethereal cloak of postmodern double standards of epistemology and uncertainty.You might pull the ghostly hood of respect down.You could throw on the immaterial gauntlets of popularity, or the insubstantial sycophantic boots of political-correctness or “I’m an atheist, buttery”, but the rest of us can see the Emperor, and yes, he has no clothes.There is nothing there.
Just because there might be questions we can’t answer at the moment through philosophy or science, it doesn’t mean that they will always be unanswerable.And even if they are, what makes anyone think for a second that these questions are religion’s magisterium?
It is precisely because there is nothing interesting or meaningful about religion that so much of an attempt is made to overcompensate.The religious have to do it otherwise we might not take any notice of them, and/or their primitive philosophy would be seen for what it is, and the non-religious do it because they’re either political correct, embarrassed, or feel a respectful obligation to include religion in 21st century conversations.
Well I don’t.If we’re going to praise religion for anything impressive about its apparel, the least we can demand is that it actually gets dressed in the first place.It is stupid to wax lyrical about the opulent attire of a naked beggar.
Of course that’s not to say the religious shouldn’t have a voice.It should just have the same weight as that of the farmer, the plumber, the magician, the streetwalker, the pimp, the gardener, and the maid.
And if you’re religious, you can have all the pride and righteousness in your opinions as you want, but you might just as well be walking around naked.
Premise 1: All (purposed) actions are prompted by need, want, or desire.
Premise 2: A perfect immutable being has no needs, wants or desire.
Premise 3: God is a being as described by premise 2.
Premise 4: Creation would have been the (purposed) action of the creator.
Premise 5: The universe exists.
From P 1 & 2: God does not need, want, or desire anything.
Conclusion: the universe couldn’t have been created.
If god is perfect and immutable, change is impossible, therefore creation is impossible (not to mention miracles and prayer).Assuming the argument is valid, which I think it is, which of the premises (if any) are wrong?In other words, is the argument also sound?
And if the argument is sound, then there is a contradiction between believing in the existence of god and that of the universe. Since we know the universe exists, god can’t.
(Note: I have clarified the argument by including “purposed”. I think it went without saying that I was referring to deliberate acts of conscious beings but based on the discussion below it was necessary to clarify.)
One of my favourite books of all time is A Devil’s Chaplain by Richard Dawkins, and over the next few weeks I hope to share some of my favourite and (in my opinion) most fascinating points from it.The book itself is a collection of Dawkins’ essays over the last few decades.Topics vary between education, science, law, evolution, memes, and religion.What I love most about reading Dawkins is that he makes his writing so engaging and understandable to the non-professional (like myself) without sacrificing the detail, or “dumbing down”.
He almost assumes that you know what he is talking, which is ok since he often explains it so well anyway.This is very satisfying to the reader, and makes your intelligence feel complimented, instead of insulted.
One of the essays in the book is called “The Information Challenge”.I wouldn’t actually put it in the top 5, but whenever I learn something new about the wonder of evolution it increases my awe that I understand it as well as I do.It also makes me feel like shaking certain people by the shoulders and saying “wake up!This is a marvellous wondrous fact about the world!Stop lying about it and hiding from it because it conflicts with your parochial beliefs!”Indeed, that me and many of my friends understand evolution better than most people says nothing about our intelligence, but rather how education and fundamentalists have let the general population down:
Almost everyone from any level of education has heard the formula e=mc2.Slightly fewer will be able to tell you what it represents, and fewer still will be able to explain it.Almost everyone on the planet knows that the earth orbits the sun (despite a few Christian fundamentalists who in the year 2007 reject a heliocentric solar system; it really makes you wonder doesn’t it?).I’d be pretty confident in saying that if you asked anyone in the street how many planets there are in the solar system, at least half of them would tell you 9.Which is fair enough; there are 8, but unless you paid much attention to science news you could be forgiven for overlooking this.But, ask an average member of the public what this expression means: “gene frequencies in a population change over time in response to environmental pressures”[1], and I will confidently bet a majority wouldn’t understand it.Perhaps I’m being cynical, but I don’t think so.
“Gene frequencies in a population change over time in response to environmental pressures” is the definition of evolution; the very reason we are all here!I don’t think you have to be a scientist or even be interested in science to have a basic knowledge of evolution.But I don’t blame people for their ignorance (I myself spent 23 years of my life hating evolution[2]); I blame education and religion.
That is not to say almost everyone won’t have heard of evolution.But ask an average man (or woman) in the street to explain evolution and they might mutter something about survival of the fittest.Ask a fundamentalist to explain evolution and they might mutter something about fish turning into people.
There is probably something awesome about the natural world to everyone.I personally find a pitch black night and a clear sky, with thousands of stars, a stupefying sight.You know what I also think is just as staggering?The fact that if you look back far enough in time you will find a connection between any two living things on this planet!All species are grouped into genera, which is a subset of Family, which is a subset of Orders.Orders are all subsets of Class, and Class is subset of Phylum, and all Phyla belong to a kingdom.The three kingdoms on earth are Bacteria, Archaea, and Eukarya (of which we belong).This can literally be viewed as a Tree of Life:
The lowest classification is species.It is easy to see that horses are more like camels than they are monkeys.It is easy to see that humans are more like chimps than we are cats.What a creature looks like is called its phenotype.The phenotype is determined by the recipe of genes in a life-form; the genotype.It is yet again easy to see therefore that (most of the time) the closer two life-forms appear, the closer they are genetically, and vice-versa.Just as American English is closer to British English than either are to Russian, and just as you and your siblings are closer to each other than either of you are to me, so animals in the same Genus and Family are more closely related than those of another Genus or Family, and certainly another Phylum!
But, most languages on earth today have a common ancestor.And although it is very unlikely I am related to you, if you back far enough it is certain you will find a connection.Similarly, many words in English are a direct derivation of French or Latin or other languages.We see leftover fragments of ancient languages in today’s languages.
You might have the same colour eyes as me; the phenotype we both share is a result of our genetic recipe for eyes being the same.You aren’t me (leaving aside personality for a moment) because your genetic recipe is different; but you just have the same genes in a different frequency.Identical twins have the exact same genotypes; they are literally clones of each other.All life on earth has the same DNA.Your DNA is no different to a mouse’s, or that of bacteria.By shuffling gene frequencies in a life-form you can produce different forms of life.Nature does this itself (although it takes far longer) by mutation.And if a mutation is favourable to the external world, those changes are selected for, and unfavourable changes are phased out.
Just as we see common words and letters in many languages on earth, from the ancient ancestral languages that bequeathed them, do we see leftover fragments of ancestral life in today’s life?We most certainly do!Humans have tailbones.Humans have atrophied feet muscles that we can’t use, but other modern apes have full dexterity of their toes with this muscle.We both have the muscle because we both share an ancestor that had it.Whales have vestigial hind legs, because their ancestors were land-dwelling mammals.Snakes can be genetically modified to grow legs, and bird beaks can be induced to grow teeth, because their respective ancestors (quadrupeds and dinosaurs respectively) had them, and those genes are still there, dormant.
Wasps are more like bees than they are houseflies.But wasps and houseflies are more closely related than either insect is to a pig.But if you go back far enough, all insects are descended from one organism.Humans are more like chimpanzees than chimpanzees are like gorillas!But we are all primates, and if you go back far enough you will find a common ancestor for humans and chimpanzees.Go further back and you will find one for all primates.
Quoting from The Information Challenge (q.v.)[3]:
“Human adult haemoglobin is a composite of four protein chains like globins…Two of them are called alpha globins, and two are beta globins.”
Even these globin genes are ultimately related!They are present in all vertebrates, which further demonstrates that all vertebrates are related to each other.
“The dozen or so different globins inside you are descended from an ancient globin gene which, in a remote ancestor who lived about half a billion years ago, duplicated, after which both copies stayed in the genome.”
After this happened, any descended animal would also have two globin types.One would become the alpha globins and one would become the beta.
Dawkins goes on to call the following a “fascinating point”, and I agree!Since this split took place so long ago (500 million years) it won’t just be human genomes that show the split between alpha and beta, it will be all related species, i.e.: all vertebrates that have evolved since then.Is this what we find?Yes!Every single life-form where we expect to find the split, we do.Proving not just that common descent is undeniable, but also extremely predictive!Can we come at it from another position; find a creature that supposedly predates our shared ancestor (for vertebrates) that doesn’t have the alpha/beta globin split?Yes!As Dawkins says this creature “would be a jawless fish like a lamprey…Sure enough, these jawless fishes are the only known vertebrates that lack the alpha/beta divide.”
Not only is simply knowing our own origins extremely satisfying and illuminating, it forces you to conclude that all life on earth is related.We are cousins with all creatures; some are more distant than others.It also makes you think why so many people are ignorant of this incredible knowledge.Worse, others actively lie about it and/or prefer a boring simplistic creation myth that explains nothing.
Not only is rejecting the fact of evolution provincial and irrational, it is foolish because it’s not as though there is anything to replace it with!A creation account cannot possibly explain nested hierarchy and common descent that we have briefly looked at here.And even if it could, it would require so many mental contortions and apologetics one should just give up and stick to the facts.
Our governments and education boards need to give evolution the time and attention it deserves, and if that upsets or offends a minority of ignoramuses, tough!To those who don’t accept evolution, I say, do yourself a favour!You are better than that!You deserve more than to have a fairy tale fed to you.You should know better than to prefer belief over facts.The history of the world is within your capacity to learn and understand.What are you waiting for?
I was in work.It was between 1 and 2pm here in England.I heard the news from word of mouth that there’d be some sort of disaster in New York.We all switched on the radio to hear more.Apparently one or two planes had crashed into the World Trade Centre.It wasn’t immediately apparent that it was a deliberate attack.
I remember coming home that Tuesday evening and watching the footage over and over again.It is the only time in my life I can recall my blood feeling cold.The words chilling, haunting, and unbelievable are used too often, but they were understatements in this case. That was 6 years ago.
As chance would have it, the 6th anniversary of those atrocities also falls on a Tuesday.May we never forget those thousands of innocent people whose lives were cruelly snuffed out for absolutely no good reason.The bravery and courage of others who risked and gave their own lives to save their fellowman stands in stark contrast to the evil minority who chose to slaughter their fellowman in the name of everything inhuman.Let it also be a reminder of what happens when people forsake reason for righteousness and facts for faith.
For those of you who can count past ten, and are fundamentalists, I invite you to play a little game with me. (In the figures below, I have actually taken the most conservative estimate on dates and numbers.)
Imagine that one second represents a thousand years. We’re about to count, and count back in time. As you count, the years fly by in reverse order.
1
That’s all for now. One second. In the blink of an eye we’ve just skipped past every football match ever played, the landing on the moon, the first and second world wars, the invention of the aeroplane, the advent of guns, the renaissance; the germ theory of disease by Pasteur, the discovery of the circulatory system by Harvey, the skeletal structure by Galen. The works of Mozart, Beethoven, Handel, Bach. The beauty of masterpieces by Michelangelo, da Vinci, and Monet. The Dark Ages, the Crusades, the Black Death.
We’ve come a long way haven’t we?
Let’s look at things from a biological point of view. Count with me…
1…2…
We’ve just gone back in the time to the wolf, when there was no breed of domestic dog currently alive today. Every single variety and nuance of canine has evolved from the same ancestor. Except, in the case of dogs, humans have played the role of selector, as oppose to nature.
In that same time, just 2 seconds, we journey back to the supposed time of Jesus. Perhaps there was a real man who started the myths (actually there were probably many at the time!), or perhaps there wasn’t. Here we have a small frightened cult that preached brotherhood and salvation for all convertees, in its infancy.
1…2…3…4…4 and a half…stop!
4 and-a-half seconds takes us back in time to about 2560 BC. At this point in our travels, we’ve just seen the last stone being laid at the Great Pyramid in Giza. What a magnificent site. Can you imagine seeing it before you? Feel the sand on your feet. Feel the baking sun beat down on the back of your neck. As you stand here, in the time machine of our thoughts, you contemplate that you won’t exist for another four and a half thousand years.
Count to 20.
We’ve travelled back to a time where no record of writing exists. There are no major cities, no civilised cultures. The human race is largely nomadic. Language is very primitive.
Now, to count back to the emergence of the human race itself, you would need to keep counting for only 3 minutes! Does that not fill you with a sense of awe? Here we are, the human race, and everything we have ever done in our entire history, can be converted into 3 minutes of counting, if we take one second as a thousand years!
Is that an unfair scale? Not when we consider that to see Homo Habilis, our earliest ancestor, we must count backwards in time, one second for every 1000 years, for about 33 minutes. (And some say there wasn’t enough time for evolution.)
But 33 minutes days is just to see our earliest ancestor. What about the Earth itself? You would have to keep counting, every second of every hour of every day of every year, for the next 52 days to arrive back in time when the earth was just forming.
And if you wanted to witness the Big Bang in the time machine of our minds, you would have to keep counting for around 180 days!
What work of fiction or product of myth can compare with the wondrous facts of our universe? Isn’t it humbling to see man’s place in the timescale of the cosmos as less than a molecule of a drop of water in the ocean?
Indeed, if the entire age of the universe was spread across one solar day, one year would take place in 0.00006 of a second (6 nanoseconds). Another way of looking at it is for every second 160,000 years would pass. The human race would have existed for just the last 1.6 seconds.
There are those who say that science is arrogant, or doesn’t have all the answers. Or cannot find answers to deeper human needs. These are the same people who might believe the earth is only a few thousands old, or believe that all of this was made especially for humans. How provincial! How parochial! How conceited! In fact, how rather dull!
What New Age belief or holy book comes close to the wonder of the real world? What ancient text, metaphysical rambling, or liturgy compares to studying creatures millions of times smaller than us, or stars billions of times larger? From the beauty and terror in nature to the everyday usefulness of clean water and mobile phones, look at what science has to offer.
And our 1.6 second ephemeral presence in the Day of the Universe should make us feel lucky that we can see our real place in the cosmos, and understand it. There is plenty of wonder to be had just around you in things that are real, than in all the mystery and contrivances of things that are not. Your infinitesimally short lifespan is a gift from the universe. I think the least we can do is know more about our Cosmological Mother.
If the history of the entire human race is 1.6 seconds on our Universal Day scale, your life is 0.0004 (that’s four ten-thousandths) of a second long. Doesn’t that make every single real second of your life precious? Doesn’t that make every 86,400 seconds (one day) worth living, because they’ll never come again?
I’d like to close with the words of Richard Dawkins, quoting from his book Unweaving the Rainbow:
“We are going to die. And that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Arabia. Certainly these unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively exceeds the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here.”
In the recently aired Bin Laden video, Osama had this to say:
“This greatest of plagues and most dangerous of threats to the lives of humans is taking place in an accelerating fashion as the world is being dominated by the democratic system, which confirms its massive failure to protect humans and their interests from the greed and avarice of the major corporations and their representatives.”
I’m not saying that democracy is perfect, but what is the alternative?Fascism, theocracy?I don’t think so.Bin Laden doesn’t care about the lives of humans.He isn’t waging a war for freedom against the tyranny of capitalism.If he cared so much about these things he wouldn’t have thousands of innocent people murdered.
No, Bin Laden cares about furthering his religio-political agenda, in which civilians are fair game to be hurt or killed in order to make a statement.
“And despite this brazen attack on the people, the leaders of the West – especially Bush, Blair, Sarkozy and Brown – still talk about freedom and human rights with a flagrant disregard for the intellects of human beings.”
Again, let’s put aside the relative merits of the US, British, and French Heads of State, and point out the enormous hypocrisy in these words: if Bin Laden cares about human intellect, he wouldn’t subscribe to a bronze age myth that rejects rationality and evidence, and treats women like property, where the death penalty, stoning, and rape, are acceptable punishments for even trivial “offences”.He talks about freedom and human rights, but what if a Muslim man in the Middle East wants to convert to another religion, is he free to do so, or is he deemed an infidel apostate who will probably be killed?And what about the rights of the people who lost their lives in 9/11?Bin Laden doesn’t mention these.
“So is there a form of terrorism stronger, clearer and more dangerous than this? This is why I tell you: as you liberated yourselves before from the slavery of monks, kings, and feudalism, you should liberate yourselves from the deception, shackles and attrition of the capitalist system.”
The irony is choking; I think the speech is incomplete, Bin Laden probably would have gone on to say “…and embrace the tyranny of a theocratic government under Sharia law which demands that the whole world be converted to Islam, and anyone who speaks out against us or chooses to live a different life is executed; where women are little more than pets, and speaking your mind is something you don’t even dare to do.”
No thank you, I’ll keep my godless Western democratic capitalism thank you very much.It’s not perfect, but it’s better than the alternative that religious fanatics offer.
Stand-up comedian Marcus Brigstocke delivered a seven-minute rant during this evening’s Now Show on BBC Radio 4, on the evils of religion (I think he’s been reading The God Delusion).’
Perhaps humour is the best way to expose this nonsense for what it is and win the average good-hearted religious person over!
This video is brilliant, but it has some real gems. Drop me a comment and let me know what your favourite part is.
Is abortion right or wrong?This can be a sensitive subject because of the emotions involved.
First of all, I do not like the phrases “pro-life” or “pro-choice”, because they are loaded expressions saturated with propaganda.They are more like political phrases that implicitly assume their position.
Some arguments against abortion beg the question by assuming that a human life is always taken which therefore constitutes murder.This is circular reasoning.On the other hand, it would NOT be circular reasoning to begin with the assumption that abortion isn’t wrong.This is because, just like in a court of law, we must assume innocence before guilt.Abortion must therefore be proven to be wrong.
I believe if an argument is to be made for or against abortion it must be done on purely moral logical grounds, based on what is best for humans.By this reasoning, I will not consider any religious or spiritual objections to abortion, because they are subjective and personal; a sound argument for or against abortion should be able to stand on its own feet.If such an argument exists however, it should be considered whatever its source.
The most common argument against abortion is that a human life is taken.Is this true?Strictly speaking, it depends on when the abortion occurs.Immediately after conception, all that is present is a fertilised egg.Is this a human being?No.The gestation period describes the process from conception to birth, and it is clear that a new human being is being created, which means there was a point in the past when it did not exist.Whilst it may not be very easy at all to pinpoint when exactly that is, if abortion occurs early enough it cannot be said that a human life is taken.
Since human consciousness resides in the brain, it makes no sense to talk of personality or humanity where a brain doesn’t exist.Also, without a sufficiently developed brain, sensation is impossible.Since there is a stage in development where the brain doesn’t exist, we can also say there is a stage where personhood cannot exist, and there is a point in time when there is no chance of harm of pain.
Let me address the inviolability of human life: this is a metaphysical position.There are those who believe human life is sacred and higher to all other animals.Others think humans should not be given any deference over animal life.Whatever your position, it would be tenuous to argue a general moral law (such as against murder) based on personal metaphysical beliefs.
Let us also consider that there is more complexity and function in an insect than a newly conceived egg.If aborting a zygote or blastocyst is wrong then so is killing insects, not to mention destroying more complex forms of life considered vermin, like rats or mice.Some might argue that human life is worth more but: 1. a zygote or blastocyst is not a human, and 2. this assumes that human life is somehow more sacrosanct than animal.However, because this is a personal metaphysical bias, it would be unfair to impose it on others, and deeming abortion wrong as a result would be doing just that.
Another popular argument against abortion is that it denies the right to live.If this is true though, then shouldn’t contraception be wrong?Every time a human couple copulate there is a chance of a new human being coming into existence and having a life.Every time prophylactics are used, millions of sperm will die; millions of opportunities for another human life are destroyed.Some might argue that with contraception, there is no direct chance for human life because conception has not occurred, but this seems to be drawing the line in a rather convenient place.Why draw the line at conception but not earlier at the point of sexual intercourse?Why draw the line at conception but not later at the point of blastocyst emergence?To draw the line at the point of conception because ‘that is when a human life begins’ is circular reasoning.Also, although it is far more likely that a human life might emerge without contraception than with it, we are talking degrees on a scale of probability: even conception will not necessarily result in human life.Between 10% and 50% of pregnancies end in miscarriage, not to mention stillbirths.Many miscarriages occur without the woman even realising she was pregnant.Here we have nature aborting pregnancies on a regular basis.
There are also the rights of the woman to consider.Placing the possibility for potential of life above the mother’s rights would seem to be unfair.This is because the mother is an actual human being with the right to decide her life and future, whereas a foetus might not even have a developed brain.As previously discussed, there are far more developed, complex, and intelligent forms of life than a foetus.Examples include: dogs, cats, dolphins, apes.In fact, a rodent or fish demonstrate infinitely more behaviour than a foetus.No one would think of placing the rights of an animal above those of a human, so why place the “rights” of a foetus or blastocyst over those of a human?This seems to be a serious logical discrepancy.
Some might argue that having sex incurs responsibility and this is indeed true. However it does not follow that having sex means that one gives tacit consent to getting pregnant and becoming a parent.Allowing for the possibility that conception might occur is not the same as agreeing to sustain another lifeform for 9 months and giving birth.Moreover, even if it did, one cannot say that abortion is right as long as conception is an accident but wrong if conception could be avoided.Who is to make this determination, and how?
It seems that abortion is a grey area because there is a gradual progression of development and exact definitions are hard.Strictly speaking, abortion could be murder and therefore wrong if it occurs too late, and harmless (and even necessary) if it occurs early enough.It seems to me that the best balance between respecting human life and rights is to leave the decision of abortion with the only responsible person who can make that decision: the woman.Up to a certain amount of time, it is her private personal decision.After such time where we can say that a human brain has developed (therefore personality will start to emerge and the foetus/baby can experience pain), the developing baby should be considered a human being with all rights and privileges thereto.Should an issue occur after this time where it is actually beneficial to terminate the pregnancy (for instance, if carrying the child to term would actually kill the mother), the decision should be the mother’s or next-of-kin’s.
I won’t pretend to have covered every issue or objection here, but I believe the primary points have been discussed.I realise this can be a difficult subject, but we must be objective and logical when discussing it.Emotion is a powerful force, and personal beliefs can cloud judgement, which is why when trying to fairly decide an issue of this importance, personal biases and emotion should be kept of it.Of course this can be the hardest thing to do, but our interest should be in the facts and what is best for people.
I will maintain that the onus is on others to prove all abortion to be wrong, and not on women to justify any abortion to be right.
A lot of postmodern inanity flies around the internet relating to knowledge and our epistemological bases.Philosophical rumination has its place, and indeed I find it quite fascinating, but in many discussions it is a red herring.Worse, it is the direst form of special pleading.
This issue raises its head most commonly (in my experience) when discussing belief.For instance, I’ve read recently:
“But atheism is itself nothing more than a belief. Any assertion to the contrary is to claim that one has discovered all there is to know about the universe, a logically indefensible claim.”
The first sentence is symptomatic of ultra-liberal political correctness; where all opinions and worldviews are equally valid, and are all expressions of some kind of belief.(Note: I’m not pretending to read anything into the author’s character or beliefs.)
First of all, the claim that one needs absolute certainty to make ANY claim is ridiculous and self-refuting.It’s ridiculous, because absolute certainty of anything is impossible.It’s self-refuting, because unless one is absolutely certain of the certainty claim, one cannot make the claim in the first place!
Second, lack of belief cannot be belief.One might lack belief in aliens, gods, zogblogs, or nerkfrends.However, one might believe that aliens or gods, zogblogs or nerkfrends don’t exist.This is of course a belief.(When discussing atheism, one must be careful to differentiate between implicit or explicit atheism.)
Not all opinions are equally valid.Not all worldviews are equally rational.Not all explanations are of equal probability.This might seem to go against politeness and respect for other people’s opinions, but a reductio ad absurdum demonstrates why not all opinions/worldviews/explanations are equal:
Claim X: “all opinions/worldviews/explanations are equal”
You believe Claim X.Let’s suppose however that my opinion is that Claim X is totally false.For the claim to be true, it would mean there that my opinion is just as valid as yours, which means there is a 50% chance that the claim is false.If there is an equally likely chance of a claim being true as it is false, there is absolutely no reason to accept it!So the claim is self-refuting, and your opinion that all opinions/worldviews/explanations are equal is just as valid as my opinion that they aren’t.So, nothing is achieved.
Furthermore, the self-annihilating nature of the claim notwithstanding, if every opinion is of equal validity, there could in theory be as many opinions on a topic as there are people capable of holding them.There are over 6 billion people on the planet, so assuming we all had a different opinion of equal likelihood, there is a 6 billion to 1 chance that yours is the correct one.
Absolute knowledge is a fantasy.We cannot be 100% certain of anything.But to use that fact to suppose that we can safely say nothing certain about anything is dire scepticism.It is also gross hypocrisy.Nobody in real life pretends that knowledge is impossible.We use the word “know” all the time, because it means something.If someone suggests that knowledge is impossible because it can never be certain, then what word do we use when we say “I know it’s raining”; “I know I love you”; “I know the earth orbits the sun”?
In a court of law, a jury is asked to conclude beyond reasonable doubt the veracity or falsity of a proposition.Imagine if video evidence shows the defendant murdering the deceased.The knife at the scene matches the wounds.The blood of the victim is found on the defendant.The defendant’s DNA and fingerprints are found on the weapon and at the scene.And the defendant has also lied about his/her alibi.What would happen if the defence attorney stood up and said: “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you have no epistemological basis for reaching a conclusion, because your decision is based on your empirical senses which are uncertain, and absolute knowledge is never a possibility.Therefore you cannot safely say with certainty whether my client is guilty or not.”
If this lawyer wasn’t laughed out of court, he would probably never acquire another case.
This is where hypocritical double standards come in.Inasmuch as we can know anything, that is the extent to which we can use that word.To couch certain issues in questions about knowledge, or equally-likely philosophies, is disingenuous.Why only bring these objections up when discussing belief, atheism, religion, and science?Why not being them up when discussing the weather, the traffic system, politics, or criminal trials?
I’ll tell you why: political-correctness, and ultra-liberalism.Perhaps some genuinely believe that all ideas are equal, or perhaps they’re afraid of saying anything definite, or offending others.Some see faith as something to be respected, or something that moves a topic beyond rational discourse.This is, of course, patently absurd.If you disagree with this, I invite you to imagine defending yourself from a rape or murder charge with the excuse “I had faith I was doing the right thing”, and see how far that gets you.
No, nobody uses faith in the real world beyond their personal convictions or metaphysical biases.Nobody stands in the rain and says “I have faith it is a beautiful clear day today!”
So why all a sudden when somebody says “I have faith that a being impregnated a woman with itself, so give birth to itself, to sacrifice itself to itself, to appease itself for the crimes of others” does the issue become unverifiable and unable to be discussed?It is bad enough when those of faith resort to this irrational equivocation, but it is even worse when non-believers pander to the faithful and pretend that these issues are beyond rational discourse!(This is commonly encountered by the “I’m an atheist, but…” crowd.)
If certain people want to invoke faith to reconcile their beliefs, that is their choice.But it doesn’t mean that others should accept this.Again, if I said I had faith that the moon was made of cheese, you would hardly respect that.I doubt anyone would think twice about sitting me down, hearing what I had to say, and looking over pictures of the moon, lunar landings, samples of moon soil etc, to establish that I was wrong and that the moon isn’t made of cheese.So why the ridiculous double-standard when it comes to analysing other claims of faith?
Not all worldviews are equal. If somebody’s worldview is riddled with contradictions, we can say that that belief system is inferior to a worldview that doesn’t contain contradictions.Believing in an Invisible Pink Unicorn is a contradiction; how can something be invisible and also pink??Calling it a matter of faith is not an acceptable answer.It does not elevate the question to a higher realm of thought where rational discourse is impossible.It is a cheap cop out.It a lazy surrendering of intelligence.It is placing belief over truth; faith over fact.
Similarly, as I recently argued, believing in a being that is supposed to be all-loving and caring and yet acts in the exact opposite way, is a contradiction.It doesn’t cease to be one when somebody plays the “faith card”.
Imagine walking across a busy main road with your eyes closed, but having faith that you won’t get hit.Nobody in their right mind would consider this rational, and if you heard of such an incident you would question the mental health of the deceased.
So again I ask: why the double-standard?Why does nobody have a problem with the expression: “I believe flying elephants don’t exist” yet if you say “I believe that the Christian god doesn’t exist”, certain people will question your epistemology, and the impossibility of absolute certainty.They might claim you’re making a religious claim yourself, or say that believing Not-X is just as much a matter of faith as believing X.
The answer is obvious: nobody believes in flying elephants, so it doesn’t affect anybody. Nobody’s beliefs are threatened or questioned; nobody is offended.Well, I never set out to offend anybody.I never set out to insult or destroy beliefs or worldviews.However, IF it happens along the way I’m not going to apologise, and nor should I.If somebody disagrees with me and proves me wrong, I’ll thank them for correcting my understanding!I want to better myself and improve my understanding of the world.Assuming that all honest intelligent people want the same thing, what harm can come from critical study?As I say, nobody has a problem talking about logic and knowledge except when they feel it violates some magical barrier.All I do is deny that this magical barrier exists.
The question of god’s existence is a supernatural and metaphysical one that probably cannot ever be settled by scientific discovery, empirical validation, or logical argument.Note, when I say “god” I mean just “GOD”, the generic term for a personal all-powerful deity.I’m not referring to a specific human myth.Now, just because we can never know for certain whether a god exists or not, doesn’t make the likelihood 50/50!To elucidate this, replace the word “god” in this paragraph for “zogblog”.Would you concede it’s equally likely that zogblog exists or doesn’t?Well, what is zogblog?What does it mean?It is a word that can be defined as we wish, just as “god” is.But we cannot define beings into existence, and just because something either is or isn’t the case doesn’t make the probability of either 50%.I don’t know if a god exists or not, but I see absolutely no reason to believe in one, just as I see no reason to believe in zogblog.If however we’re talking about a specific god, there is absolutely no reason at all for us not to see if this being is at least logically coherent.If I say Zogblog is a square circle, you would call it irrational.So why withhold a conclusion about another being that also has a definition that allows us to reach conclusions?
Only by rational discussion and analysis can we select the best possibility from a variety of options. If there are several explanations for a phenomenon, let’s see what the best one is. Let’s see which makes sense.All explanations and worldviews must yield to logic, because logic is the basis for all epistemologies.Knowledge is predicated on logic, so if something defies logic, it makes no sense to claim to “know” it.To pretend there are some things beyond logic is self-refuting and duplicitous.
(This article isn’t intended as an attack on belief (or anything).The purpose is to show the idiocy of ultra-liberalism and the hypocritical special pleading when it comes to knowledge and certainty.I’ve used atheism and theology here as examples only.)
