Young Freethought

What Is Knowledge?

2012-01-10T11:46:00.000Z

Have you ever wondered what it is to know something? We use the term in everyday life constantly. Consider examples like your friend who’s unable to work the T.V. remote to which you say ‘I know how to do that’. Or when buying someone a gift you might say to yourself ‘I know that they like chocolates’. What do we mean when talk like this? You might notice that there are actually two kinds of knowledge displayed in the examples above. The first was knowing how to do something whilst the latter was knowing that something was the case. In this article, we’ll be talking about that second kind of knowing. Philosophers have worried about the problem of knowledge for a very long while indeed.

The problem of knowledge was generally held to have some kind of solution which took a standard form. It went something like this...

I know that something is the case if and only if:

I believe that something to be the case.
That something is the case.
I am justified in believing that something is the case.

Let’s work through an example to see just how this is a really intuitive thing to think. Let’s say that I want to know if I know that I am seeing a picture of Mount Everest. What the three conditions above say is that I only know that I am seeing a picture of Mount Everest if I believe I see the picture, there is actually a picture which I am seeing and that this belief is justified.

The first condition makes sense because I could hardly know I am seeing a picture of Mount Everest if I didn’t believe I was (although this has been disputed!). Secondly, I couldn’t know something that wasn’t true, so condition two seems sound. What about number three? Imagine I believe that every mountain in the world is called Everest. So whenever I look at a picture of a mountain I think it is Everest. It just so happens that this picture I’m looking at now is actually a picture of Mount Everest. Do I know that the picture is of Mount Everest? Surely not. But say if I have seen documentaries about Everest, seen pictures of it before and am in the presence of a reliable friend who assures me that this is Mount Everest. Now I know that I am seeing a picture of Mount Everest. The trouble is, I don’t.

Imagine you're an academic and up for tenure. If you get it you have job security for life. You’re worried since you haven’t published any papers so currently you’re unlikely to get it. The story goes that Edmund Gettier was in exactly the same position before he published a very short paper called ‘Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?’ and blew away over a thousand years of philosophy. Apparently, he’s not published anything since.

What Gettier did was to show us a situation where we can have a justified true belief yet still fail to have knowledge. He did this with two examples the first of which I’ll discuss here. Imagine Jones and Smith are going for the same job. Jones, sadly for him, has been informed by a very reliable person (say the one interviewing him) that Smith will get the job. What’s more Smith is a lot more qualified so Jones really doesn’t stand a chance. Now suppose that Jones, in an odd act of subterfuge, counts the number of coins in Smith’s pocket before the successful candidate is announced and that number is ten. So Jones infers that Smith has ten coins in his pocket and that since Smith will get the job he further infers that the man who will get the job has ten coins in his pockets. Unbeknown to Jones he also has ten coins in his pocket and lo and behold, after a last minute change of heart, Jones gets the job. So here Jones believed something that was true and was justified in believing it, but did Jones really know that the man who will get the job had ten coins in his pockets? We really want to say no, since Jones was wrong in thinking that Smith would get the job, but if we accept the justified true belief account of the story, we have to accept that Jones possessed knowledge.

This problem has frustrated philosophers for a very long time and inspired a multitude of responses. The more you think about it the more frustrated you'll get. What’s your solution?

Jeremy Combs 1989 - 2011

2011-12-23T16:31:00.000Z

It's with great sadness that I pass on news of the death of Jeremy Combs who was a past contributor to Young Freethought. Jeremy died unexpectedly at the age of 22 on 17th December.

You can read an obituary on the Hartland Patch.

Jeremy wrote this excellent piece for Young Freethought, published on 4th April, on existentialism and suicide.

Our thoughts are with his friends and family at this difficult time.

The Hitch and I

2011-12-22T18:04:00.000Z

When I woke up last Friday I heard the news of Christopher Hitchens’ death on the radio. A feeling of shock accompanied what was an inevitability. I was shaken the whole day, deeply saddened by the death of a man I had never met. Why?

The many obituaries commenting on the life and work of Christopher Hitchens are often written by those who knew him. Some very well and others very little. It would seem out of place here to offer some kind of summary of how Hitchens lived. He reflected on such things well enough himself in his articles and interviews regarding his cancer. This small piece is simply an explanation of why ‘the Hitch’ meant what he did to me and, I think, why he meant the same to so many others.

My contact with Hitchens was small though it doesn’t appear that anyone could have spent enough time with him. Somehow in possession of his email address I sent what might be called fan-mail but to me seemed like a necessary proclamation of all I had learned from reading his work and a thank you for sharing it in the first place. I was thrilled when the response came through in the new year.

Very good of you to write in that vein: quite made my day.

Best of luck with your efforts. 

HNY and all that.

 Christopher H

That I can claim to have made a day of his still makes me proud even if he perhaps was only being kind.

When you read Christopher Hitchens’ work it is not just as if he is speaking to you in that deep and commanding timbre of his. He is ordering you to make more of yourself through the strength of his argument, flare of his pen and content of his character. Hitchens was a rare writer of whom you read and quite simply emerge a better person for it. His way was as if he knew you well. There is a fraternal intimacy between writer and reader which gives the impression of having known the writer for years.

Now that he is dead there is a weighty void which is filled only with echoes. It’s a void that tyranny in all it’s forms falls into never to emerge the victor.

Christopher Hitchens will remain a hero of mine for the rest of my life. A life that I can only hope might live up to the standards he championed.

Christopher Hitchens 1949 - 2011

2011-12-16T07:22:00.002Z

A.C. Grayling on the Meaning of Life.

2011-12-15T11:40:00.000Z

My attention was recently drawn to a short video posted on the New York Times website of an interview with the philosopher Anthony Grayling. In essence he is talking about the meaning of life. I quite agree with everything he says so I’d highly recommend a watch. It what follows I’ll summarise and discuss just what it is that Grayling’s wise words share.

Philosopher A.C. Grayling

The one, and alas the only, time I met A.C. Grayling was at a talk in late January 2009 at Birkbeck College. As an even younger bright-eyed aspiring philosophy student I furiously noted down everything I could and have been wondering ever since when those notes might come in handy. Sadly, today is not that today. Nonetheless, I spied Grayling in the college cafe afterwards and, rather awkwardly, formed a little queue of one behind the fellow Grayling was talking to. Kind enough to notice my efforts, Grayling moved on his interlocutor and said hello. I blurted out this that and the other before asking him a question I was at that time a little worried about - ‘How can life have meaning if there is no afterlife?’. Grayling told me, in that lovely distinctive voice of his, that being with friends, thinking about philosophy and all sorts of other worldly pleasures and endeavours gave his life meaning. I thanked him and walked off before he yelled to me ‘Come do philosophy at Birkbeck!’. I sadly didn’t take up the offer, though I am now a philosophy student. His answer was sincere, I could tell that much, but at the time I wondered whether it really answered my question. After a little thought it becomes clear that it does and this recent video explains why.

There is no lid, as the philosopher says, to take off in order to see meaning contained within some metaphysical vessel. It’s not ‘out there’ among the many wonderful facts of physics and astronomy. Meaning is a creation of our mental lives. The important thing to see is that this does not make it any less real than any kind of meaning (and it would be a strange kind indeed) that you could find in the spatio-temporal world, that is the physical world we live in.

“Freedom is agony” because we now have to find and for ourselves just what it is we desire in life. This harks back to a famous chapter from Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov known as The Grand Inquisitor. The title character argues to a reborn Christ that people do not desire freedom but simply happiness. For him, it is the burden of a few to take on the responsibility of free choice whilst the others obey without concerning themselves with such things. It certainly is a frightening revelation to feel how free one is. The right response, surely, is to grasp the freedom and as Grayling says, to create something. “The meaning of life is to make life meaningful” is such a wonderfully put motto.

By setting goals that we desire to achieve meaning comes, not in achieving that goal, but in doing ones best to try to achieve it. The analogy Grayling brings with Camus’ The Myth of Sisyphus is pertinent because in that scenario the goal not only will never be achieved, but is in some sense, impossible to achieve. I’ve written about this myth elsewhere a while back but it’s worth going over in case you’re unfamiliar with the story. Sisyphus was a deceitful King of Corinth who was forced by the gods to carry a boulder up a steep hill only to see it roll back down again. Sisyphus had to go back down and repeat his burden. This task would continue for all eternity. Camus then asks us to imagine Sisyphus happy. Here Sisyphus’ life is meaningful because of the attitude he takes towards it or is “made valuable by the goals it would realise if [he] succeeded in realising them.”

Though it might be frightening it is freedom of autonomy that “is the source of the good in life”. Meaning is a creation, a creation we ought to be proud of. Thank you Anthony Grayling for expressing all this so well.

We're Back!

2011-12-14T12:38:00.000Z

After a period of quiet after the storm, YFT is back. This time our brief is bigger and so are our ambitions. We are receiving articles on almost anything from anyone under twenty one. See our submissions page for more details.

This site is fuelled by your contributions so don't be shy. If you've got an idea get writing and send it in. If you don't feel like that right now, then get commenting and shape your views.

You may have noticed that this site has changed its domain to youngfreethought.net. As a result there are new email addresses so don't get confused if you're an old-timer.

I really look forward to hearing from you all.

Darwin's Essays

2011-08-15T11:00:00.002+01:00

I'm very pleased to be able to present you with an exciting new opportunity today courtesy of Pete Darwin. All the information is at this website address but, in Pete's own words, this is the deal:

Dear all young non-theists! I am Pete Darwin and I’m an avid secular humanist atheist and have been all my life. I’m currently completing a Masters of Science at the University of Melbourne in the area of evolutionary genetics and zoology. Anyway, I am working at putting together a book of essays regarding the younger generations’ rise to atheism.

The idea for this book was brought about when I decided I wanted to tell my story about how I became an atheist, as well as share a bit about my personal life with religion and numerous fundi family members. It’s been a bumpy and interesting ride to say the least. However, while reflecting on my own history with religion and atheism I knew there must be numerous other interesting, amazing, scary, and even heartbreaking stories out there that should also be told.

And the details?

To write 2000-5000 words:

Firstly, on their rise to atheism (the when, where, why, how), and any other interesting personal stories with religion or supernatural belief.

Secondly, on the role atheism plays in your life.

Thirdly, on at least one thing that brought them to atheism or solidifies there position there.

This is a great opportunity and I hope many of you will submit your essays.

Belief vs Non-Belief

2011-08-05T11:55:00.001+01:00

The journalist Andrew Zak Williams has recently conducted a quite interesting survey of Britain’s public figures over belief in God. Williams asked believers why they believed, and non-believers why they didn’t. It makes interesting reading and you can find the articles by following the links embedded above.

On the side of the believers, many of the arguments appeal to religious experiences and most refer to some kind of emotional as well as intellectual fulfilment. Occasionally, the atheistic alternative is seen as too dreadfully morbid to accept. Stephen Clark, for example, wrote that...

I believe in God because the alternatives are worse. Not believing in God would mean that we have no good reason to think that creatures such as us human beings (accidentally generated in a world without any overall purpose) have any capacity - still less any duty - to discover what the world is like.

I’d hope for more from a professor of philosophy than ‘I don’t like the alternative answer, so I’ll choose this one’. Moreover, it seems to be a common misunderstanding that just because we are an evolved primate, we are unable to understand the world. In fact, our evolutionary advantage stems from the fact that we can and do understand the world, albeit our own little corner of it.

Still more strange was this answer from Hugh Ross, an astronomer:

Astronomy fascinates me. I started serious study of the universe when I was seven. By the age of 16, I could see that Big Bang cosmology offered the best explanation for the history of the universe, and because the Big Bang implies a cosmic beginning, it would require a cosmic beginner. It seemed reasonable that a creator of such awesome capacities would speak clearly and consistently if He spoke at all. So I spent two years perusing the holy books of the world's religions to test for these characteristics. I found only one such book. The Bible stood apart: not only did it provide hundreds of "fact" statements that could be tested for accuracy, it also anticipated - thousands of years in advance - what scientists would later discover, such as the fundamental features of Big Bang cosmology.

My observation that the Bible's multiple creation narratives accurately describe hundreds of details discovered much later, and that it consistently places them in the scientifically correct sequence, convinced me all the more that the Bible must be the supernaturally inspired word of God. Discoveries in astronomy first alerted me to the existence of God, and to this day the Bible's power to anticipate scientific discoveries and predict sociopolitical events ranks as a major reason for my belief in the God of the Bible. Despite my secular upbringing, I cannot ignore the compelling evidence emerging from research into the origin of the universe, the anthropic principle, the origin of life and the origin of humanity. The accumulating evidence continues to point compellingly towards the God of the Bible.

The Bible showing the correct sequence of events in creation? Is that why the Earth, water, grass and trees all occurred before the creation of stars according to Genesis? Presumably then, our planet is made of no element heavier than helium, as stars are required for such a task? It’s really quite silly of Ross to say such a thing. I gather he does it a lot.

On the other side of the fence we find AC Grayling in a nicely cutting mood with:

I do not believe that there are any such things as gods and goddesses, for exactly the same reasons as I do not believe there are fairies, goblins or sprites, and these reasons should be obvious to anyone over the age of ten.

Bravo.

Daniel Dennett too gives a characteristically straightforward and thoughtful answer:

The concept of God has gradually retreated from the concept of an anthropomorphic creator figure, judge and overseer to a mystery-shrouded Wonderful Something-or-Other utterly beyond human ken. It is impossible for me to believe in any of the anthropomorphic gods, because they are simply ridiculous, and so obviously the fantasy-projections of scientifically ignorant minds trying to understand the world. It is impossible for me to believe in the laundered versions, because they are systematically incomprehensible. It would be like trying to believe in the existence of wodgifoop - what's that? Don't ask; it's beyond saying.

But why try anyway? There is no obligation to try to believe in God; that's a particularly pernicious myth left over from the days when organised religions created the belief in belief. One can be good without God, obviously.

Many people feel very strongly that one should try to believe in God, so as not to upset Granny, or so as to encourage others to do likewise, or because it makes you nicer or nobler. So they go through the motions. Usually it doesn't work.

I am in awe of the universe itself, and very grateful to be a part of it. That is enough.

But sadly it seems, the fantastic Ben Goldacre seemed pretty apathetic about the entire thing. He wrote that:

I think probably the main answer to your question is: I just don't have any interest either way, but I wouldn't want to understate how uninterested I am. There still hasn't been a word invented for people like me, whose main experience when presented with this issue is an overwhelming, mind-blowing, intergalactic sense of having more interesting things to think about. I'm not sure that's accurately covered by words such as "atheist", and definitely not by "agnostic". I just don't care.

I understand exactly where Goldacre is coming from, but it does portray a lack of willingness to engage in an issue that the majority of people of the planet shape their entire, or at least some of their, lives with. Justifying non-belief with a simple 'I don't care' isn't a justification at all. And not to provide one a little crass.

If you have some spare time, give the articles a read. Also have a look at Williams’ review of the answers from believers.

Can Religion Be Beautiful?

2011-08-03T18:29:00.003+01:00

“Lo, let that night be solitary, let no joyful voice come therein. Let them curse it that curse the day. Let the stars of the twilight thereof be dark; let it look for light, but have none; neither let it see the dawning of the day.”

Job as de La Hyre envisaged him

These are the words of a man who has just lost all his possessions and offspring in a terrible accident. These are the words of a man who is forced to scrape the awful boils that plague his body off with pieces of pottery. These are the words of Job, lamenting the night he was born.

The Book of Job is, of course, infamous. In it God boasts to Satan that there is none holier and more righteous than the man Job. Satan wishes to test this theory by inflicting a series of misfortunes on Job, as already described, and God permits this. The book is a dialogue between Job and his companions whilst they try and understand exactly why God has acted in this way. For devout believers this story presents a challenge to their own understanding. Some might call it beautiful. What is clear, or at least what I think is clear, is that the language of the Book of Job in the King James Bible is beautiful. Balanced, metaphorical, rhythmic even cathartic. I read Job and I admire these things for their beauty. But, as an individual not tied down to dogma or holy works, I believe Job to be an abhorrent story with an abhorrent moral and an abhorrent God at its centre. It teaches us to cower under authority and respect that which governs us with apparent whim. Therefore, the question; is the Book of Job beautiful?

The story is a good one for understanding the difficulties behind the relationship between religion and beauty as a whole. There is, of course, no criteria by which we can determine beauty objectively. It has been and will be always open to discussion. However, thinking about how I look at Job, it’s clear that my mind is divided between two parts – the words and emotions, which I find beautiful, and the narrative, which I don’t. Is this kind of distinction really possible when it comes to religious art?

Christopher Hitchens’ bestseller, god Is Not Great, has the subtitle How Religion Poisons Everything. Let’s say that an individual performs a series of fantastically generous and kind deeds. I hear about such people and applaud their nature. If I hear that what motivated them to do such things was their religion, I applaud less loudly. I do so because I think obedience to a divine creed, even fear of a divine being, is no good reason for doing anything, let alone charity. Religion has poisoned the good work done. No matter what the deed is this will be the case.

Now compare. You catch on the radio a beautiful piece of classical music playing. The voices soar, the melody sonorously glides and the texture builds into something rich and rewarding. In short, it’s beautiful. The piece ends and the disc jockey proudly declares “... that was the dona nobis pacem from the Mass in B minor by Johann Sebastian Bach.” Damn and blast. It’s a Mass. A piece, not just of musical expression, but religious worship. Is it still beautiful? It would be very hard indeed to say no. But is it as beautiful? Unfortunately, I don’t think so.

Motive is the key factor here. There have been those, Roland Barthes comes to mind, who have proclaimed, as he did, ‘The Death of The Author’. An author’s or artists’ intention is less important than the work produced. However, as long as I know the author of the work did have religious intentions, I cannot remove this from my understanding of the work, at least not in any practical un-abstract sense. Even if Bach had been a Dawkensian atheist the piece itself professes a motive. It is aimed at worshiping God. Motive can, in my opinion, poison art.

The saving grace here might perhaps be the use of perspective. As I outlined in another article on a similar topic, perspective allows us to understand better the minds and actions of those whose views and outlook are vastly different from our own.

But still, the question remains: can religion be beautiful? I think the answer ought to be yes, ‘the religious’ can be beautiful – but not as beautiful as something that isn’t.

The Foundation Beyond Belief

2011-08-02T16:11:00.001+01:00

My attention has just been drawn to the work of a very worthy foundation whom I think it would be worth alerting you all to. The Foundation Beyond Belief (FBB) try and promote the obvious idea that secular human beings care for the needy just as much as the religious do. Stated clearly on their website, their mission is:

“To demonstrate humanism at its best by supporting efforts to improve this world and this life, and to challenge humanists to embody the highest principles of humanism, including mutual care and responsibility.”

Sounds pretty worthy to me.

The FBB selects ten small secular charities each quarter and raises funds for them. As explained to me by the FBB, these are the reasons to join:

“...you’ll be putting your humanist values into action and benefitting people around the globe. In addition to raising money for worthy charities, with assurance that the money will be spent on programs, not proselytizing…

1. You will have access to nominate and debate future beneficiaries
2. You choose which charities you support each quarter
3. You can participate in the social network areas of the site and connect with other humanists
4. You can donate to multiple charities from one website”

Please do inspect their work further and consider donating. It could make a difference to someone out there.

Welcome To The Universe

2011-08-01T14:23:00.002+01:00

In this, rather morbid essay, regular contributor John Kubinski returns on top form with his thoughts on the "ruthless brutality" of the universe, reacting to an accident that hospitalised him.

Following an accident in which my face free-fell to asphalt, I came to the following realization: The universe is our worst enemy. Using ruthless brutality and indiscriminate violence, it will maim and kill all of us. These are the brute facts, and they constitute premises from which no additional reasoning can be done. The destructive tyranny of the physical world is immutable and totalizing. One dreams of revolution, but there is no doubt that we are forever condemned as slaves to the indifferent order.

We use the word “accident” as though human misery is a mistake. From the physical perspective, there are no accidents. The universe, with frightening efficiency, systematically inflicts harm and loss on each and everyone of us. Every modicum of pain, every weakening of our powers, every disappearance of greatness and beauty - it’s all staged beforehand. The situation is worse than being written in stone; these hellish facts provide the stone tablet that constrains whatever it is may be written. We have access to one medium. It's crude, violent, and only permits the telling of one story: gruelling oppression. Torture and death are guaranteed in advance.

There is no greater feeling of helplessness then to realize that one has a body. (I should in fact say that one is a body.) It is to understand that we subsist on a purely material basis as a mere collection of “stuff.” Unprivileged stuff. Like the wood or metal that makes up the objects around us, we can be cut, bent, crushed, shredded, torn, sliced, shaved, ripped, broken, incinerated, frozen, or disintegrated. We find ourselves inhabiting a universe where objects move at dangerous speeds, where temperatures have been known to rise beyond the point which we can tolerate, and where magnitudes of force that our bodies cannot withstand are encountered with regularity. And if the terrain were not treacherous enough, there are other assemblages of organic matter out there who will destroy us upon contact - some small, some large, some who are just like us. (It’s amazing that in a world already as harsh as ours, people are willing to kill each other.) Don’t forget, if the impossible circumstance arises in which external threats fail to end us, there is always the certain internal degradation of our own vessel to keep us from having any hope. We are thrown into this world enchained to a carbon-based time bomb. And if you don’t hear it ticking then you’re simply not listening.

Recovery from my “accident” will not qualify as a victory. Quite to the contrary I face a very real loss. I emerge with parts of my teeth removed, and my skin irrevocably blemished. “But you’re ok, aren’t you?” For now. We are always dodging bullets; I have just been grazed by one, and more shots will be fired. Another chink accumulates in my armour. So it goes until the executioner stops fooling around.

Vulnerable. This was the word I kept coming back to. I am vulnerable with no hope of safety. The conditions which enable me to enjoy life are physical conditions, and physical conditions can always change. In the hospital I was placed next to an old man who was clearly suffering from neurodegeneration. He had trouble remembering what season it was. I could see a human being dissolving. He mentioned that he had lost his sense of smell as a result of a motorbike accident. A whole mode of experience had been seized from him. All the pleasures of olfaction were forevermore prohibited. Reality had revoked his permission to smell. It was pure violence. The joys of existence can literally be beaten out of you. A blow to the skull might rob you of sight or hearing, of memories or lucidity, of your passions and relationships. I suffered no such losses, but this was a matter of luck. I can still run and jump. I can still read and write. I can still learn and think. I can still love. This will all change.

I cannot believe I’ve gone through a fair portion of my life doubting whether there was really such a thing as “good” or “bad.” There is certainly bad, I’ve just met it. With a painfully strong hand-shake and a dismissive attitude the first thing it tells you, in a tone of bold assurance, is that you cannot win. Your rage is naturally inspired by the opponent, but with the rules of engagement so heavily biased, the urge to fight yields more frustration than progress. You get kicked in the face, you can't fight back; welcome to the universe. The narrative of course depends on an additional character in order to be compelling: good. Life only ends up being so bad precisely on account of how good it is. Our subjectivities are as rich and wondrous as the existentialists, poets, and artists have told us. Nietzsche wrote: “…in the long run there results something for which it is worth the trouble of living on this earth as, for example, virtue, art, music, the dance, reason, the mind — something that transfigures, something delicate, mad, or divine.” This quote first struck me as a reasonable proposition, but now I see it to be on the order of maxim. Good things really do spring from the human well. I no longer have to wonder what good is. I am convinced that my whole life I have been touching it with my own hands and seeing it with my own eyes; and not only have I encountered it, but I’ve taken part in its creation. I’ve performed it, written it, thought it. Like the air I breathe, there’s so much of it that I’ve failed to detect that it was there at all. If my suffering is real, then so must be the good things of which suffering deprives me. I now understand why Camus says a happy man is a tragedy.

I should add, words cannot truly capture the terror of reality. It must be felt and confronted in the midst of experience. The elegance of language obscures the fundamental ugliness of the world. I’ve mouthed many of the words in this essay before, but usually only as an abstract intellectual exercise. That I’m part of the system, and not merely an observer, has come as quite a shock. When you lose one thing, you realize you can, and will, lose everything. The universe is really as hostile as it seems.

To distill my conclusions:

Reality is ugly, life is beautiful.

Morality In The Absence Of Religion

2011-07-31T13:34:00.002+01:00

In this excellent article by a new contributor, Matthew Bullard examines the relationship between religion, morality and society. Matthew is a nineteen year old studying in Paris.

Everything that people look for in a god can be found in those around us; why look upwards for guidance when you can look to your side?

After having become more and more disgruntled at the claims made by Christians that Atheism preaches immorality; retreating to use a fictional power as evidence when the argument subsided, I began to question the society in which we live and how religion and social condition have left such a large proportion of the population purblind to scientific fact, instead choosing to rely on scripture and outdated religion for guidance.

There is but one unanswered question in life which seems to hold a universal significance, with opinions on the matter pervading every corner of the earth; that question being whether or not there exists a higher power. If one accepts the scientific fact-negating notion that the world in which we live is governed by an ethereal being, the individual is able to tolerate life’s hardships as their struggle, providing it has been moral, will be rewarded in the afterlife. Yet for those reasoned individuals for whom life is entirely self-governed, is there any room for morality once confronted with the nondescript uncertainty of what life entails?

Society needs a common moral framework. This may be, and for many centuries has been, provided by widespread religious belief, but in the twenty-first century, surely one can be moral for reasons other than conformity with a religion. Nietzsche once said, ‘He who has a why to live can bear almost any how.’ which for the Judeo-Christian world affirms the belief that tolerance of hardship, and a moral life lived in accordance with the ten commandments will be rewarded in the afterlife. Although rendering the inconvenient truth for the non-theistic world that the meaning of life is not tangible, it does not necessarily condemn the individual to a life of immorality. According to a study by the Global Peace Index, irreligious and non-theistic nations are the most peaceful in the world; there are several possible reasons for this. It could be that the population of turbulent countries turn to religion to escape the ordeals of their lives, or it could be that religion is not a good way to structure modern society. In any case, it irrefutably sheds light on the matter that morality doesn’t have a distinct correlation with faith; the word faith used to encompass all religious belief, aside from the aforementioned Judeo-Christian religion.

The structure of society in the twenty-first century is that of a multi-cultural cosmopolitan community which encompasses all nations and all faiths, and whilst still maintaining individuality from country to country, there is a much larger sense of a global community. Look back to the beginning of the twentieth century and the world was a completely different place; religious belief was widespread with atheism being a taboo, yet with the advancements made socially over the last hundred years, why is there such significance placed on religion to provide a moral framework?

As Eugene Ionesco once said, ‘No society has been able to abolish human sadness, no political system can deliver us from the pain of living, from our fear of death, our thirst for the absolute. It is the human condition that directs the social condition, not vice versa.’

The real question about morality being derived from the bible is, “Do new notions of morality come from better interpretations of the bible, or does the new notion of morality cause the different interpretations?” Surely a consciously aware, globally active community such as the United Kingdom doesn’t need to rely on thousand-year old scripture in order to live a moral life; surely morality is an inherent part of a modern society, with its upkeep being maintained by the society as a whole; surely morality can be secular.

Notification

2011-06-13T18:58:00.002+01:00

Young Freethought will be back with regular updates this August. Sorry for this everyone! In the meantime, please keep sending in your articles. They are getting read and will be posted come August!

All the best
MJPC

British Faith Schools Looking Shaky

2011-05-03T15:15:00.008+01:00

Andrew Copson, the chief executive of the BHA has written a thoughtful piece in the Guardian about recent Church announcements over British faith schools. It may seem obvious to many of us without much thought why faith schools are such a bad idea. Copson’s article reaffirms this stance and provides the evidence to back it up.

After making it clear that most of us don’t actually want publicly funded religiously selective education anyway, Copson goes on to reveal their truly divisive social nature. Middle class parents simply can afford to play the system to get their children where they want them. Copson writes:

Repeated studies have shown that where there is religious selection in church-run state schools there is also social selection. A report by academics at the LSE in 2009 reaffirmed that the range of admissions criteria allowed scope for school "discretion", but social selection need not even be deliberate on the part of church-run state schools. Even the most socially progressive school will find, if its admissions criteria allow for religious selection, that it is middle-class parents with the time and the means to play the system whose children will end up attending the school. The pupils admitted to religiously selective schools are more academically able and less likely to be on free school meals than others in the area. They show all the attributes of socially selected children.

It shouldn’t be forgotten either, that the basic principle that the religious, purely because of their faith, are therefore qualified to educate the youth is wrong. Of course, one does not follow the other. Neither should we ignore that faith schools provide the perfect place for subtle indoctrination.

The Bishop of Oxford has admitted that now at least 90% of schools shouldn’t be religiously selective. As Copson says the Bishop’s “statement can certainly be given at least 90% of one cheer for going further than any of his predecessors.” It’s certainly a start at the very least.

If you’re 21 or under and perhaps have had experience of faith schools first hand, you may wish to write in to us about this issue so we can publish your views. The address is still youngfreethought@googlemail.com

The Catholic Church Fights Justice Once More

2011-05-02T11:14:00.006+01:00

Yesterday we witnessed the Vatican’s flagrant disregard for justice in full regalia and pomp. The late Pope John Paul II, now the Blessed, was one of the most popular in history. He has now been beatified which is, in essence, the penultimate step on the road to sainthood. Yesterday there was a one million strong crowd filling St Peter’s Basilica rejoicing that their favourite pontiff was now safely in Heaven. By all accounts the crowd was jubilant with a carnival atmosphere as many young people took to dancing and cheering.

So what’s the problem? John Paul II ruled over an institution which regularly raped children in almost every country where you can find a priest, he knew about the scandal and refused to do anything to stop it, the Vatican did not refer cases to the appropriate authorities, priests were not tried in criminal courts, children were made to feel guilty about their abuse and all parties involved were ordered to keep their mouths firmly shut. Not to mention how John Paul II prevented contraceptive use in the developing nations causing the spread of HIV where it is most deadly, and preached the usual Catholic bile over women, homosexuals and abortion. There is an ever increasing mountain of documents to back this up. Denying it is now a ludicrous thing to do. All those who came out in celebration yesterday were either knowledgeable of this and therefore either morally condemnable or in denial, or they knew nothing of the Church’s role in the scandal and their ignorance is inexcusable as Catholics. That is the problem. Nothing will get done about this and the old cretin will surely be declared to have been a saint in the near future. Our governments have already proven themselves too weak and unwilling to do anything about these rapists and pederasts and their masters who hide behind the walls of the Vatican.

To add insult to those who value justice, the Vatican invited none other than Robert Mugabe to the ceremony yesterday. The President of Zimbabwe is currently under an EU travel ban for crimes against humanity and electoral fraud, but this was waived by the cowardly Italian state to allow Mugabe to land at Rome Airport and travel to the Vatican, which is by all practical measures, apparently above international law anyway.

War Criminal Mugabe shaking hands with Vatican officials

All of this should come as no surprise, but how these villains get away with all this is genuinely astounding. Overseeing the beatification process was Ratzinger, the man who personally ordered the cover-up of all these abuse cases. John Paul II is required to have performed a miracle in order to be beatified. The miracle in question has so far not been independently verified (not that a miracle ever can or will be), and reports that the supposed cured subject has fallen ill again have met deaf ears. The only good story regarding the Church at the moment is that a court in Kentucky has recently demanded that the current Pope appear to answer questions under oath over an abuse scandal. Whether this will happen is uncertain.

That we live in an age that can celebrate the lives of such men so openly, that we can disregard justice and that we can ignore the voices of those who have been raped by people meant to protect and guide them makes me greatly uneasy and ashamed. The overwhelming feeling that justice will never be delivered is one of the saddest thoughts there is.

Christopher Hitchens' Message to American Atheists

2011-04-27T11:18:00.005+01:00

Christopher Hitchens

The great atheist of our time, Christopher Hitchens, has written this short piece as a result of his inability to attend the American Atheist convention. I thought it was worth sharing.

Dear fellow-unbelievers,

Nothing would have kept me from joining you except the loss of my voice (at least my speaking voice) which in turn is due to a long argument I am currently having with the specter of death. Nobody ever wins this argument, though there are some solid points to be made while the discussion goes on. I have found, as the enemy becomes more familiar, that all the special pleading for salvation, redemption and supernatural deliverance appears even more hollow and artificial to me than it did before. I hope to help defend and pass on the lessons of this for many years to come, but for now I have found my trust better placed in two things: the skill and principle of advanced medical science, and the comradeship of innumerable friends and family, all of them immune to the false consolations of religion. It is these forces among others which will speed the day when humanity emancipates itself from the mind-forged manacles of servility and superstitition. It is our innate solidarity, and not some despotism of the sky, which is the source of our morality and our sense of decency.

That essential sense of decency is outraged every day. Our theocratic enemy is in plain view. Protean in form, it extends from the overt menace of nuclear-armed mullahs to the insidious campaigns to have stultifying pseudo-science taught in American schools. But in the past few years, there have been heartening signs of a genuine and spontaneous resistance to this sinister nonsense: a resistance which repudiates the right of bullies and tyrants to make the absurd claim that they have god on their side. To have had a small part in this resistance has been the greatest honor of my lifetime: the pattern and original of all dictatorship is the surrender of reason to absolutism and the abandonment of critical, objective inquiry. The cheap name for this lethal delusion is religion, and we must learn new ways of combating it in the public sphere, just as we have learned to free ourselves of it in private.

Our weapons are the ironic mind against the literal: the open mind against the credulous; the courageous pursuit of truth against the fearful and abject forces who would set limits to investigation (and who stupidly claim that we already have all the truth we need). Perhaps above all, we affirm life over the cults of death and human sacrifice and are afraid, not of inevitable death, but rather of a human life that is cramped and distorted by the pathetic need to offer mindless adulation, or the dismal belief that the laws of nature respond to wailings and incantations.

As the heirs of a secular revolution, American atheists have a special responsibility to defend and uphold the Constitution that patrols the boundary between Church and State. This, too, is an honor and a privilege. Believe me when I say that I am present with you, even if not corporeally (and only metaphorically in spirit...) Resolve to build up Mr Jefferson's wall of separation. And don't keep the faith.

Sincerely

Christopher Hitchens

Taken from Pharyngula.

Bloodthirsty Syrian President Supported By The Church

2011-04-26T20:03:00.005+01:00

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad

As if it was needed, today another startling reminder that you don’t need religion to be able to tell right from wrong and that divine inspiration can’t guarantee you don’t mind killing innocent civilians. The current Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has been killing peaceful protestors out on the streets in order to prevent another uprising. Meanwhile, on BBC 4’s the Today programme, Bishop Philoxenos Mattias of the Syriac Orthodox Church came out with this statement which I’ve done my best to transcribe over the poor phone line:

"The Christian orthodox church with its deep faith in the lord supports the government and the president for the progress of our state in [the] future. [Indecipherable...] in his Easter message communicated our support for the President. The relations between the Church and the State are good and healthy as far as we are concerned. We’re happy to say that the president shows tolerance to all the Syrian Christian citizens as well as all our Muslim brothers always. It’s why we always support and respect and love the president, his regime and the government. We will always support him."

So whilst they’ve had the tripartite nature of the Trinity sorted since 325 AD, they still don’t quite understand why killing the innocent is a bad thing. Granted the statement didn't condone the violence directly, but it didn't have to. Bashar's murderous nature is clear to all. Supporting him so vocally amounts to the same. Whether there be political, socio-economic or corrupt reasons why this statement was made, I do not know. All I do know is that an institution which claims to posses the word of God has made the claims it has.

It’s all simply more manure to add to the pile.

Sam Harris - The Moral Landscape: The Is and The Ought

2011-04-15T21:09:00.005+01:00

Freshly armed with a PhD in neuroscience, the now Dr. Sam Harris returns with his new book The Moral Landscape – How Science Can Determine Human Values. This book has ignited much serious, and not-so-serious debate, among the intellectual community at large. The first thing I urge you all to do is go out and buy it. The ideas presented in it are among the most urgent, original and stimulating which you are likely to find from a work aimed at a general audience in many years.

Harris’ central theses is that questions of morality translate into questions about facts relating to the well-being of conscious creatures. For a short summary of this claim and its consequences from Harris himself, watch this TED Talk in which he throws out his thoughts at a blistering pace. The fairly comprehensive Wikipedia article on the matter is refreshingly good too. Alternatively I’ll try and do justice to it by attempting to summarise its single main claim fairly and accurately although very briefly:

Science is a domain of knowledge which traditionally does not offer any opinion on issues of morality. In turn, many scientists, philosophers and other intellectuals offer a kind of relativistic moral fudge when assessing ethical issues. We may disagree with female genital mutilation, dressing women in “cloth-bags” , as Harris fantastically calls the Burqa, and even rape and murder, but if someone wishes to commit, and in fact does commit, such an act, there is no ‘moral fact’ for them to be right or wrong about. We can condemn them for breaking the law, or attack them for doing something that runs contrary to our own desires and feelings of right and wrong, but no more than that. They are not objectively wrong.

This is the kind of talk Harris detests, and rightly so. He claims, morality is about facts. Namely, facts relating to the well-being of conscious creatures (how Harris bridges this traditional ‘fact-value’ gap will be discussed a little later). What’s more, human well-being is a concept that can be described in terms of states of the brain. The more we understand about neurobiology and psychology the more we will be able to determine which actions lead to and which ones inhibit human well-being, as well as discover the causes of human suffering. Thus, the right action is the one which scientifically leads to human well-being.

Sam Harris at his 2010 TED Talk

So why has this book provoked almost universally negative reviews? Harris has been termed everything under the sun, from having “breathtaking hubris” to having argued along the same lines as eugenicists and Nazis. Most of the criticism seems opposed to Harris’ way of bridging what is generally known as the ‘fact-value gap’ or the ‘is-ought’ problem. The Scottish philosopher David Hume, whom many believe to have been the greatest English-speaking thinker of all time, claimed in his magnum opus A Treatise of Human Nature, published in 1739, that it is a mistake to derive what ought to be the case (what is good) from what is the case (plain facts about the world). The Cambridge philosopher G.E. Moore offered a similar and more detailed argument in his 1903 work Principia Ethica where he claimed that whenever someone attempted to define what the ‘good’ was in terms of another natural property, e.g. human well-being they were committing the 'naturalistic fallacy'. These views have become so well-entrenched that they are now common property for pretty much all Western thinkers.

To frame these ideas in reference to Harris’ views, I’ll use an technique Moore called the Open Question Argument, using human well-being as the property in question. It goes something like this; if human well-being was a good thing, it would be meaningless to ask ‘Is human well-being good?’, but to ask whether or not human well-being is good is not a meaningless question, therefore human well-being is not the same thing as what is good. In essence, you can always add a why. Whoever states that human well-being is good, can always be met with the question of why.

For me, the most philosophically interesting aspect of Harris’ idea lies in the bridge he tries to build between facts and values. This is the focus of this post and it leaves the vast bulk of Harris’ book, unfortunately, completely untouched. Nonetheless, here’s how he does it. Harris asks us to conceive of a universe whereby all conscious creatures suffer to the maximum extent that is possible, a scenario he calls “the worst possible misery for everyone.” He goes on to say that “if you think we cannot say this would be “bad,” then I don’t know what you could mean by the word “bad”.” He continues:

“... I am saying that a universe in which all conscious beings suffer the worst possible misery is worse than a universe in which they experience well-being. This is all we need to speak about “moral truth” in the context of science. Once we admit that the extremes of absolute misery and absolute flourishing – whatever these states amount to for each particular being in the end – are different and dependent on facts about the universe, then we have admitted that there are right and wrong answers to questions of morality.”

According to the Humean view, saying that the worst possible misery for everyone is “bad” is merely a statement of a personal point of view. As Hume himself characteristically put it “’Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger.” Could Harris' and Hume's positions be further apart? Although we may passionately agree that the worst possible misery for everyone is bad, can we really say to someone who thinks that it is not that they are objectively wrong, or can we simply just disagree with them?

At a talk in London last Monday, I asked Sam Harris this question – “What is the scientifically demonstrable fact that tells me I ought to value human well-being?” After all, isn’t this what Harris’ theory is about? Showing that it is a fact that we should value well-being? His answer was very interesting. He claimed that it was “more reasonable than reasonable” that the worst possible misery for everyone is bad and that we don’t demand similar rigour from the other sciences. That last claim bears analysis.

Imagine that someone turned up at a debate you were having and claimed that they did not believe science to be any good whatsoever. You ask why and they tell you that science carries two assumptions. The first is that human experience is a good guide to reality. The second, that logical coherence is also a good guide to reality. They then tell you that they deny these things to be the case. They don’t value experience and they don’t value logic. As Harris puts it when making a similar point it is “fruitless to argue with such people.” We might, for example, try and argue with this person by pointing to how useful science is, that planes fly, that it just works. But they will just claim that you are pointing to experience to prove such a claim and that, remember, they don’t think experience has any value whatsoever. Such a person cannot engage in a meaningful debate about science and neither can they do science. We must leave them to their folly. But because science rests on these assumptions, it is not degraded and its enterprise is not lost.

What about morality? Here’s how Harris puts it in his convincing response to his critics:

“In my book, I argue that the value of well-being—specifically the value of avoiding the worst possible misery for everyone—is on the same footing. There is no problem in presupposing that the worst possible misery for everyone is bad and worth avoiding and that normative morality consists, at an absolute minimum, in acting so as to avoid it. To say that the worst possible misery for everyone is “bad” is, on my account, like saying that an argument that contradicts itself is “illogical.” Our spade is turned. Anyone who says it isn’t simply isn’t making sense.”

Another valuable way of putting this is quoted by Harris earlier in the same response and comes from the pen of the philosopher Thomas Nagel. He writes that:

“The true culprit behind contemporary professions of moral skepticism is the confused belief that the ground of moral truth must be found in something other than moral values. One can pose this type of question about any kind of truth. What makes it true that 2 + 2 = 4? What makes it true that hens lay eggs? Some things are just true; nothing else makes them true. Moral skepticism is caused by the currently fashionable but unargued assumption that only certain kinds of things, such as physical facts, can be “just true” and that value judgments such as “happiness is better than misery” are not among them. And that assumption in turn leads to the conclusion that a value judgment could be true only if it were made true by something like a physical fact. That, of course, is nonsense.”

Nagel takes a slightly different path in arguing that asking the kind of question I asked Harris is an unreasonable one. We can’t justify our belief in experience by referring to something outside it; we don’t have any candidates and experience can’t verify itself. We simply have to value it. The same goes for logic. Philosophers have tried to create ‘meta-logics’ to understand and justify logic, but since Gödel proved that any logical system will lead to paradox, it’s been made clear that, as with experience, we simply must place value on logic. Morality is the same. My question was asking Harris to point to some “moral fact” out there in the universe. But empirical “moral facts” don’t exist. Perhaps morality has met it’s equivalent basic assumption in Harris’ work.

Whatever the answer to the question is, my own views before reading The Moral Landscape were definitively Humean. Now, I am not so sure. Even admitting that it is reasonable to assume that the worst possible misery for everyone is “bad” entails so much. I urge everyone to read this book and challenge their own assumptions. Mine have been. I am left confused, curious and happier for it.

More analysis of other aspects of this book will follow soon. Alternatively, if you are under 21, have read The Moral Landscape, and wish to comment on any aspect of it, email your piece to us!

youngfreethought@googlemail.com

Knowing Why You Do Things

2011-04-12T14:56:00.001+01:00

A sophisticated and interesting post here from Young Freethought regular John Kubinski. In it, he uses the works of the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche to argue that atheists should start turning from the external to the internal world and apply a little more honest self-criticism.

“…already it begins to be seen what results of a serious kind spring from the ground of psychological observation.” - Nietzsche’s Human, All Too Human

Nietzsche’s name brings with it connotations of destruction and dissolution. His philosophical method is one of placing things before the sceptical incredulous mind and watching the objects of examination crumble in on themselves. Tearing through the inconsistencies or assumptions of an argument is a typical enough exercise, but what about doing the same to a man? ‘Psychological observation’ has a fairly harmless and innocuous ring to it, sounding altogether academic. But Nietzsche assures us that engaging in it yields “results of a serious kind”; that phrase too, is lacking in force of impact. As he articulates elsewhere, psychological observation is a tool of such great power that those who make use of it are likely to see themselves and others, and indeed the whole of human affairs, in a light so bright that it might pain us with blistering insight; for through it we may learn why we exist the way we do. Nothing encountered so far in human history has been able to withstand the testing trenchant glare of the critical mind, and there’s no reason to expect that our own lives - and the beliefs, motives, and actions contained therein - should be any different.

The turning of the sceptical inquiring eye away from the outward world and into the inner world of the human being is a key philosophical transition. This turn is fundamental to Nietzsche’s method, and more essential to atheism than I think most realize. When the sceptical eye meets itself in the mirror, it is a great and terrible moment. For suddenly doubt no longer threatens to undermine what appears to be in the world, but the very content and nature of the self comes into question. The sceptical human looking outward immediately recognizes that it’s situated in a world filled with falsehoods, uncertainties and mistaken appearances; myths abound, fanciful delusions rule, there is untold zealotry and error. And as the critical human finally looks upon itself, it sees a creature just as broken and misguided as the world at which it gazes. A deluge of questions penetrates the self, throwing an incisive light on inner unjustified contingencies. Why are you the way you are? Why are you doing what you’re doing? Why do you think the way you do? Why do you hold the beliefs that you do? What are your motives? Why are you responding to these very questions in the way that you are? Opaque notions of ‘good’, ‘right’, and ‘true’ which were once taken for granted appear untenable in their lucidity after one has engaged in self-scrutiny. If anyone recognized how hypocritical, delusional, capricious and just plain irrational religion was, it was Nietzsche; and what he saw in religion, he saw in mankind generally. The common method underlying Nietzsche’s conclusions about religion and man is the investigation of origins. Things so readily appear as good and true to us without us ever asking what the origin of these things are (such as religion) or what the origin of our own sentiments are: where do our evaluations of goodness and truth come from? Upon an atheist’s heretical awakening to the falseness of religion, a further observation than the nonexistence of God naturally arises. Rather strikingly, the atheist notes that so many people seem to readily to subscribe to ideas lacking any evidentiary or logical foundation and not have the slightest clue that they are doing so.

It’s occasionally remarked with humour that Descartes set out to doubt everything only to end up concluding God’s existence was an absolute unchallengeable truth. [René Descartes (1596-1650) was a French philosopher and mathematician who coined the phrase ‘I think therefore I am’ in an attempt to find the single certainty of existence. His arguments, in a circular way, led him to belief in God.] We have no reason to doubt Descartes’ commitment to rationalism. His errors lied in his naïve understanding of human intellect as a perfect objective guide to reality. He failed to consider the culture he was raised in, the emotional importance believing in God had to him, and the ways in which his reasoning was likely to be biased in the service of his ideological agenda. If he only had asked himself, “Why do I wish to believe in God?,” Descartes may have been able to see through the absurdity of his ‘ontological argument’.

The prompt for this essay was a familiar reflection on the horrific persistence of nationalistic attitudes, and a simple question; “Why are people so willingly nationalistic?” From my ensuing thoughts about the accident of any individual’s birth in a particular country, the early pressures for internalization of national pride, the social enshrinement of The Patriot and The Soldier and then about the deep evolutionary past when competing groups of humans acquired an adaptive bias to advance the interests of those within the group and refuse compassion or understanding to those outside it - from all these thoughts, from this ugly mountain of plainly bad reasons for the tribal disposition - I was struck by the power Nietzsche had properly attributed to the examining of origins. It’s so very easy to see the arbitrary irrationality of things when we are willing to ask where they come from.

From the inside, religion will always appear wholesome and reasonable. For a religious person to escape the clutches of their dogma, they must be willing to reject their experience. Here atheism provides us with a lesson that can be generalized: if we do not question our impulses, they can seduce us into believing and doing anything. As much as atheism appears to be about scientific interrogation of the world around us and a rigorous empiricism, it is equally if not more a product of self-examination and inner-questioning. Those nonbelievers who came from deeply religious backgrounds can probably surely tell you: seeing the truth is hard. Knowing why we do things is the key to breaking our cages of comfort. With terse wit, Nietzsche reminds us of our perversity:

“One will rarely err if extreme actions be ascribed to vanity, ordinary actions to habit, and mean actions to fear.”

Vanity, habit, fear: these are the commonplace motives of human behaviour. As evolution predicts, and experience confirms, we are petty animals at bottom. If we aspire to be freethinkers (what Nietzsche calls “free spirits”) then we must not only glorify reason but face our penchant for satisfying delusions. The test of our commitment to freethought comes when the pronouncements of reason are entirely disagreeable. No matter how much we may wish to avert our eyes from the unflattering origins of our motivations and beliefs (easily summed up as cultural dogmatism and biological selfishness), to do so is to close the door to truth. Understanding how people and cultures came to be is to grasp the whole of human existence in all its unreasonable arbitrariness; what follows is a world stripped of grandiosities, exposed in a nakedness which inspires horror alongside uneasy intermittent laughter. But as one swallows their fear and reflects on their discoveries, it must be decided that the world should remain disrobed of its illusions, for to feel the trembling that comes with these decentring ruptures of our being is to know that we have been liberated.

'If There's No God, Why Don't You Just Kill Yourself?' - An Existentialist's Response

2011-04-04T19:51:00.002+01:00

This interesting piece was written by Jeremy Combs, 21, studying psychology and philosophy. As vice-president of the Secular Students of Flint, Jeremy offers his philosophical rebuttal to a common problem stated by many believers. If there's no God, why don't us atheists just end it all? (The quotes in this article are taken from the SEP)

I have been asked a countless number of times “Well, if there is no God, why don’t you just kill yourself?” Solely Christians have posed this question to me. The reason may simply be that I spend more time around Christians than any other religious group. Although in being a Christian one must believe that God is the creator and that we live to serve Him, the fact that they even ask this question is still extremely troubling to me. I have had multiple believers look me in the face and confidently say, “If I didn’t believe in God, I’m sure I would commit suicide. Who wouldn’t? There would be no point to living.” My answer to this... any sane person.

Firstly, we must ask what reasons might make someone feel this way? I believe that holding this viewpoint shows an inability to garner what makes us human. It shows the inability to have a higher level of thinking and eliminate selfish, animalistic behaviour. In expressing the fact that they would kill themselves if there was no God, these Christians reveal something so deeply selfish of themselves: the treason they have committed. These Christians are Christians because they believe that they will have an afterlife filled with glory. If anything, this removes them from the burden of being true Christians. They are doing nothing more than sinning by existing, as if in some waiting room, while they hold such a belief.

So why is that one can be an atheist and still exist quite happily? To answer this, I am going to borrow largely from Existentialism, one of my favourite philosophies. Within it, I’m going to first lay a very small base of Existentialist morals.

One of the most important faces of the movement, Jean-Paul Sartre developed the idea of ‘authenticity’. Although a somewhat difficult concept to fully understand, authenticity, in its most simple explanation, means being true to one’s self.

“The conscious self is seen as coming to terms with being in a material world and with encountering external forces and influences which are very different from itself; authenticity is one way in which the self acts and changes in response to these pressures.”

Sartre applies his idea of authenticity to the choices that one makes throughout their lifetime.

Authenticity implies two things because of its ontological nature [ontology is philosophy speak for ‘the study of being of existence’]. The first is the idea that there is future as a possibility. Secondly is the idea that one’s past is ‘facticity’, our past as fact.

“We could say that authenticity is fundamentally living this ontological truth of one's situation… the claim ‘that's just the way I am’ would constitute a form of self-deception or bad faith as would all forms of determinism, since both instances involve lying to oneself about the ontological fact of one's nonself-coincidence and the flight from concomitant responsibility for “choosing” to remain that way.”

In simpler terms, Sartre is telling us to be true to ourselves.

This idea forces one to be active in the choices of their life. Saying “I can’t do anything about it” or, “I can do anything by just wishing it” makes one inauthentic. Authenticity requires that one allows for free will for others when acting towards another individual. This implies that hurtful and bad actions such as murder or torture are immoral and inauthentic.

“Sartre sometimes talks as if any choice could be authentic so long as it is lived with a clear awareness of its contingency and responsibility. But his considered opinion excludes choices that oppress or consciously exploit others. In other words, authenticity is not entirely style; there is a general content and that content is freedom. Thus the “authentic Nazi” is explicitly disqualified as being oxymoronic.”

Sartre believes that, while following the concept of authenticity, one must make their own set of morals and goals in life. This is something I agree with. We, as human beings, create our own afterlife through the legacy that we leave behind. How we have affected other people in the world, either positively or negatively, continues to influence them after we have died. We have the ability to positively affect a countless number of others. Our influence can spread over cities, countries, continents and even time.

I can continue to live because I have created a set of morals and goals for my own life that I believe will positively affect the world. As an atheist, I have the ability to be truly selfless. I am not selfless because God has told me to do so. I am selfless because it is authentic to me.

Being An Atheist

2011-03-23T21:08:00.002Z

In this impassioned second post from the contributor, 21 year old Chanchal Krishna, an engineering student from India, offers his view about the difficulty of becoming an atheist.

Contrary to what believers may think, being an atheist isn’t easy. It’s not as if one day you wake up and say “God; you’re a fraud and I’ve had enough!” There has to be a seed of doubt inside you. Nurture it with knowledge and common sense, build and fence around it with curiosity. One day the seed will grow to be a tree, with roots running deep, not in soil, but science and truth. And the fruit that the tree bears is the realization that there is no superman to save you. That means no one to grant you special favours, no one to offer cheap bribes. My professors would definitely not grant me extra marks if I went and told them “Sir! I screwed up my studies, but if you’ll let me pass I’ll pray to you. Let’s avoid the middle-man God.” We liked gods, but in my mind, they’re too good to be true, like my imaginary sea of beer.

Believers should know that it isn’t easy. The crutch you depended on for so long has vanished. No one wants to unsubscribe to that reward game. But what if the reward game is a hoax? That’s what we atheists realized during our painstaking search. Yes it is painstaking; knowledge and truth don’t come easy and atheists have done their homework. Don’t treat us like some ignorant toddler. When we say we don’t believe, we simply choose to walk on our legs instead of on imaginary crutches. To those morons that preach that I’ll go to hell: I’ll take my chances but why don’t you worry about your problems? When you’ve got enough to keep you occupied for a life time, how can you say that God is there for you? Those who go a bit further by claiming that God in fact did come and talk to you, can you ask him to come and talk to me in person so that I can be a believer? If I have enough proof I don’t see anything wrong in subscribing back as a devout follower. Yes, I said it; we atheists are open minded and would admit it if proven wrong. But only if proven wrong, which is impossible given the amount of evidence science has bought about.

I’m a free man who owes no allegiance to any masters, and as the cartoon says, I’m old enough to stop imagining things. Atheism is a terrible responsibility, like freedom. I’m responsible for myself and I don’t think that makes me a bad person. I don’t need a reward programme to do good. For an atheist the biggest reward is their happiness in helping fellow human beings. Being an atheist doesn’t make me devoid of morals nor does it mean I am a moral person. Atheism doesn’t pin any badges, it just makes you what you are; a curious human being with at least a few less reasons to hate your fellow brothers and sisters.

Wear Your Ashes, Convert An Infidel

2011-03-03T07:48:00.002Z

An odd little story here courtesy of the Independent Catholic News. Catholics are being encouraged to wear their lent ashes with pride on March 9th. That is, to walk around with a cross on their forehead. A cross made of ash. Apparently here’s what Bishop Kieran Conry, Chair of the Department for Evangelisation and Catechesis (I wonder what his CV looks like...) said:

"Ash Wednesday is the start of Lent when we are invited for forty days to set aside more time for prayer and fasting in preparation for Easter. The Ashes, made in the sign of the cross on our foreheads on this day, are an outward sign of our inward sorrow for our sins and of our commitment to Jesus as Our Lord and Saviour.

"The wearing of the ashes provides us with a wonderful opportunity to share with people how important our faith is to us and to point them to the cross of Christ. I invite you where possible to attend a morning or lunchtime Mass. Please try not to rub off your ashes as soon as you leave church, but take the sign of the cross to all those that you meet - in your school, office, factory, wherever you may be. This might just make people curious and wonder why you would do this. If you explain about Lent and Easter it might just make them think and may even awaken in them the questions that might lead to faith. Many people have a dim awareness of Lent and even ashes. It would be good to make this clear rather than dim.

"Don't underestimate the power of this simple action and wear your ashes as not only a sign of the beginning of your Lenten journey, but also to witness to your greatest treasure in life. This small step could awaken faith in the hearts of many that you meet in a way that words could never do so."

It’s odd enough that the faithful feel that have to resort to fashion statements to promote their faith. What’s more it’s even stranger to think that someone’s metaphysical views about the nature of the universe, valuation of the scientific method and moral standing can be changed by seeing some silly looking ashes on a person’s forehead. I'd like to think I'm not that gullible thank you very much. I've written once before on the strangeness of religion (regarding magical saintly saliva powers) and it’s great fun finding and pointing out these peculiarly harmless examples. If you find any and are under 21 why not write about it for us?

The Murder of Shahbaz Bhatti - Pakistan's Second Crime

2011-03-02T19:47:00.005Z

It deeply saddens me to be writing, for the second time this year, of another Pakistani politician and decent man who was today shot dead by the Taliban for speaking out against the country’s arcane and dangerous blasphemy laws. Shahbaz Bhatti was leaving his mother’s house in his car when a flood of bullets fired down onto the vehicle. His death follows that of Salman Taseer, former governor of Punjab, who was murdered in broad daylight by his own bodyguard for opposing the same laws.

Shahbaz Bhatti 1968-2011

In my article about Taseer’s death, I said that his murder was not simply done in the name of religion, but that it was a direct result of religion; the religion of Islam and its practise of Sharia Law, which recommends death to any blasphemer who insults the prophet. After today, I stand by that conclusion. You just have to notice the glee and pride with which the Taliban claimed they committed the murder or the rose petals which Salman Taseer’s murderer found lining his way to the courthouse to know that this crime was motivated and carried out with unfazed and menacing Islam at its cold core. This is the black heart of a wicked idea. Any believer can, with divine warrant, proclaim themselves judge, jury and executioner, performing each one of these deeds with immunity. The two militants who sprayed Bhatti’s car with bullets left leaflets afterwards that ended “With the blessing of Allah, the mujahideen will send each of you to hell." Those wicked men who killed Bhatti today only did so because of their wicked religion. This is evil. Religion is evil. Islam is evil.

There is one shred of hope to emerge from this story. Shahbaz Bhatti provides us with a real life example of extreme courage. In January Batti filmed this video and asked it to be sent to the BBC in the event of his assassination. This is some of what he said in it:

“The forces of violence, militant organisations, the Taliban and al-Qaeda; they want to impose their radical philosophy in Pakistan. And whoever stands against their radical philosophy, they threaten them. When I’m leading this campaign against the Sharia Laws, for the abolishment of blasphemy laws, I’m speaking for the oppressed...” He continued “...I’m ready to die for a cause, I’m living for my community and suffering people and I will die to defend their rights. So these threats and these warnings cannot change my opinion and principles. I would prefer to die and follow my principles and for the justice of my community rather than to compromise on these threats.”

These are the words of a very brave human being. That there are people like him should provide us with the solace of at least a glimmer of hope.

Bhatti was the only Christian in the Pakistani cabinet. To some extent his actions were probably motivated by his Christian beliefs. It is a shame that it took one fallacy to attack another greater one, but nonetheless the actions of Bhatti are to be highly commended.

The British Foreign Secretary William Hague called the actions of the murderers “cowardly” but he is grossly mistaken. The men who have killed Salman Taseer and Shahbaz Bhatti are afraid of nothing. When they die, they believe they will receive an eternal reward. They will kill anyone because of their faith and they will die trying. Whilst these disgusting creatures are protected by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, a nation that still refuses to amend the blasphemy laws, there will be no freedom of speech, conscience, or expression in that part of the world. We need more brave men and women to make a stand. The Taliban have their numbers, let’s hope we do too.

Homophobic Foster Parents - What To Do?

2011-03-01T20:35:00.002Z

Listening to the radio this morning I heard an interesting little story that raises big questions about homosexuality, Christian belief and public service. On BBC4’s flagship news broadcast, the Today programme, a pleasant enough sounding couple called Eunice and Owen Johns appeared to defend their wish to continue being foster carers, as they had been doing for a number of years and apparently very well by all accounts. The snag is this: the couple are Pentecostalist Christians who believe that homosexuality is a moral evil. The UK High Court ruled that, because their beliefs do not accord with the Orientation Act, (which states that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is illegal) they can no longer foster children. So what are we to make of all this?

Today programme presenter Justin Webb put forward the case the council and judges did. It is the Johns’ right to believe whatever they wish to believe about whomever or whatever they chose to believe it. It is not, however, ok to perform a public service and espouse views that are contrary to the rights of other human beings, rights that are enshrined in law. I can’t help but say I completely agree. Believe whatever nasty things you want to believe but don’t push those beliefs onto the children you are meant to be raising on behalf of the state.

Of course, this is all hypothetical because there is no evidence to suggest that the Johns’ did, in fact, raise any of the fifteen or so children they have fostered in the past to be anti-homosexual. The point is that the principle is at stake here. What’s more, it is by no means a situation that could never present itself to the Johns’. I’m proud that the High Court have got this one spot on.

On the radio, the Johns’ defended their right to foster a child in all manner of ways. They told us that “all we as Christians are asking [for] is a level playing field in society” and that “if the child has come to us and said they were homosexual [...] we could’ve worked through it” as if homosexuality were some kind of unwelcome mental illness (which probably isn’t too far from what they do believe). It was one particular platitude uttered by Eunice Johns that really got to me because you hear this line of thought so often. Continuing onwards with her crusade she said “I don’t hate homosexuals, I hate the act”. Now, all freethinkers should be able to recognise the problem with a bit of effort: homosexuality is not an act. Homosexuality is a form of love like any other and should be treated as such. Every time you hear this mistake made please correct it.

If you feel like reading some reactionary Christian bile about this story try this article from the appallingly pious Charisma magazine. Hopefully you’ll find like me that its persistent references to ‘freedom of conscience’ being denied in favour of ‘homosexual rights’ unconvincing (nobody’s freedom of conscience is being denied here – except those who want to espouse medieval claptrap whilst performing a public duty). On the other hand if you want a good and more detailed account of the whole story try New Humanist.

There’s one final thought I’ll end on. This whole issue has been fought on principle but what’s at stake really are the potentially happy childhoods of many children. The Johns’ are ostensibly good parents and in all likelihood, since they foster children from the ages of 5-10, homosexuality may never arise. Who knows? It’s not exactly like being brought up by al-Qaeda. Foster caring is a tough job and not many are willing to do it. What should take precedence here? Principle or Practicality? If we need more foster carers in this country should we just accept that in an imperfect society, just for now, we have to accept imperfect public servants? I don’t know the answer, but the question is an important one.

A Pocket Sketch of Hume's Philosophy of Religion

2011-02-23T18:11:00.006Z

The happy man himself. David Hume (1711-1776)

The philosophy of religion devised by Hume was one dominated by scepticism. As such, it was the object of much attack from theologians in his own lifetime and remains so today. Hume propounded naturalistic explanations and philosophical arguments that offer convincing rebuttals of nearly all aspects of religious philosophy. In short, he was a philosophical polymath. In this short and modest essay, I hope to provide an interesting and stimulating sketch of the following; 1) his empiricist project and relation to the traditional religious arguments for God’s existence, 2) his essay ‘Of Miracles’, 3) consider Hume’s influence as a founder of the (atheistic) scientific method, proto-(atheistic) existentialism and his effect on the current atheist resurgence or ‘new atheism’ as it is commonly referred to. I will, unfortunately, neglect Hume's work on the sociology of religious thinking.

Hume called his own empiricist metaphysics a “science of human nature” (Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding). Hume argued that metaphysics cannot make sense unless it remains within the realm of human experience: what Hume calls the “Universe of the Imagination”. This idea, when applied to God, shows that we simply cannot know his nature and speculation is futile, since ‘He’ is clearly outside of our experience. Hume explains it along these lines. In his Dialogues, the character of Demea makes a distinction known as ‘Demea’s distinction’ – we can know God exists, but must remain silent as regards ‘His’ nature. The character Cleantheas sees this as a form of heresy. He advocates the analogical argument from design (a form of the teleological argument) in response, but is silenced by Hume’s voice Philo. The teleological argument, argues Hume, is too anthropocentric. It assigns attributes to God that, 1) we could not possibly have any knowledge of and 2) are merely human attributes with “infinite extension”. Essentially, the problem with teleology is that our experience provides too little information to infer similarity between ourselves and an almighty being.

Hume’s account of causation is one of ‘Constant Conjunction’ and his critique of the Cosmological argument hinges on it. Since, as described above, Hume holds that we cannot know what is outside the bounds of our experience, any a priori reasoning regarding “Matters of Fact” (experience) is “chimerical”. As such, we can provide no ultimate rational justification for our common inferences – what we now know as Hume’s problem of induction. There are various readings of Hume’s views on causation but on a ‘quasi-realist’ interpretation, advocated by the philosopher Simon Blackburn, our experience of causation is nothing more than regular succession, whilst necessity is merely a human ‘projection’. Thus, the cosmological argument’s claim that God is some kind of necessary cause is metaphysically redundant. Paul Russell argues that this shows Hume rejects Lucretius’ maxim of ex nihilo, nihil fit; nothing can come from nothing; an originally atheistic concept that theologians such as Clarke had turned on its head. Lucretius was an atheistic ancient. The proposition in question was central to his thinking. But Clarke and others showed that it entailed two further propositions about causation; whatever exists must have grounds for its existence, and that no cause can produce or give rise to perfections or excellences that it itself does not have. Clarke and others then argued from these principles, that the only causa sui (cause of itself) with intrinsic grounds for its own existence was God. For reasons described above regarding the limits of experience, Hume simply replies ‘how do you know this principle is true?’ The answer of course is that it cannot be known. Its opposite implies no contradiction (known as Hume’s conceivability principle). The cosmological argument is based on an account of metaphysically necessary causation that Hume simply rejects. Thus Hume rejects the two main religious arguments offered for God’s existence – teleological arguments and cosmological arguments.

Perhaps Hume’s most cited and celebrated work his is essay ‘Of Miracles’ in his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. I’ve written about this in more detail in the past for Young Freethought if you wish to investigate more. Hume defines as a miracle as a “transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent." Crucially, he does not deny the metaphysical possibility of miracles occurring. Instead, Hume focuses on testimony, advocating a sceptical attitude towards it in all forms. His famous criterion for belief in a miraculous testimony is thus: “That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish...” . Christopher Hitchens puts it like this: what’s more likely; that the laws of nature have been suspended in your favour, or that you are under a misapprehension. In Part II of his essay, Hume argues that testimony can never win the battle for five main reasons. 1) The emotions of awe and wonder are “agreeable” to human nature. Thus people are prone to be credulous to perceived miraculous events. 2) Devout believers are often willing to report what they know to be false for the good of the faith. 3) People are simply too willing to believe the reports of eloquent orators or authority figures. 4) It is among the “ignorant and barbarous nations” that such reports normally arise. Hume, with his taste for irony, points out that many thinkers of his day ask why such miracles never occur in their age or location. 5) If miracles were accepted, then they are mutually incompatible as they come from different traditions. George Campbell, another Scottish thinker, published A Dissertation on Miracles (1762) in direct response to Hume’s recent publication. He argued that Hume misunderstood the nature of faith and Campbell also reasserted that the number of witnesses was the most important factor in determining the truth of a miracle. Hume likely understood the nature of faith but saw it as spurious (nowhere does his epistemology account for or accommodate it) and he had already dealt with the former objection within his essay.

Hume’s precise legacy in Philosophy is not limited to Philosophy of Religion. Indeed, his contributions to knowledge was so great that it is under the title of ‘historian’ that he is listed in the British Library, the discipline he was most renowned for in his lifetime. As such, it is impossible to pin down his exact lineage regarding religious thought. A general point might be made in saying that Hume made it respectable to be an atheist (in philosophical terms that is; it would still take another hundred or so years for British society to accept non-belief).

The current atheist resurgence or ‘new atheism’ movement, is being led by the self-styled ‘four horsemen of atheism’ – Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris. All four authors have written at least one book on the subject since 2004 and each one cites Hume, though some more than others. As a conscious movement, ‘new atheism’ turns to Hume for philosophical grounding. Religious opponents to ‘new atheism’ constantly find themselves confronted with his arguments. I shall briefly focus on the influence of Hume in the work of Daniel Dennett.

The philosopher (Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, Penguin, 1995) claims Hume as one of his ‘Heroes’. He credits the Scot with a successful attack on teleology, arguing that Darwin provided the hard evidence for Humean insight. Typical teleological arguments are “top-down”; to explain complexity, you need greater complexity. Dennett cites Hume’s mouthpiece in the Dialogues when he postulates that the universe would eventually resolve into a configuration allowing for Human life, claiming Hume almost trumps Darwin by one hundred years. Central to Dennett’s thesis is the idea of skyhooks and cranes as explanatory tools. Cranes build from solid foundations, whilst skyhooks are less well grounded. The ultimate skyhook is God. In the skyhook model, to explain the complexity of the universe, we need greater complexity. But for Dennett, Hume was the first to reject this idea. Hume would only accept cranes, the true method of explanation. But Hume was not around in 1859, when Darwin published his book on the ultimate crane – evolution. However, Hume gave Darwin philosophical grounds to build from. Without Hume, we may have had to wait for Darwinian thought to emerge.

The comparison has also been made by O’Connor (Hume on Religion 2001) and Leiter (Nietzsche on Morality 2002) between Hume and the Existential movement. If Nietzsche was a ‘proto-existentialist’, Hume was perhaps a ‘proto-proto-existentialist’. O’Connor tentatively suggests the validity of such a connection can be made. Though Shakespeare’s Hamlet maintained a fear of oblivion, Hume’s mouthpiece Philo positively affirms life; despite the lack of rational justification for our actions, revealed most acutely in Hume’s problem of induction . Hume and Nietzsche both had the essential existential realisation and their responses, though distinct, were similar. Atheistic existentialism is the most famous attempt to construct an affirmation of life in the absence of divine dictatorship. This is key to the moral debate in philosophy of religion as regards to ‘meaning’. God seems not only a superfluous explanatory power (what Dennett would call a ‘skyhook’), but not essential to provide a fulfilling life. If Hume is right, he has almost completely destroyed the validity of much debate in philosophy of religion.

M.W.F Stone, when discussing miracles, simply states Hume “must” be the starting point for any student. This is true with almost every aspect of the objections to traditional religious arguments – cosmology, teleology, sociology and morality. The only argument Hume neglected was the unanimously suspect ontological argument. His influence stretches so deep and far it is impossible to pin down precisely. Open almost any book on atheism or objections to religious arguments and Hume will certainly be included. This highly brave and original thinker has, in my view, a worthy place on the table of great philosophers of religion, as well as a place on the high alter of philosophy – Hume would have appreciated the irony.

If after reading this, you feel like you might want to explore Hume in a little more depth, I'd recommend these books as a good starting place.