On Agnosticism and Dogmatic Atheism.

Agnosticism

Agnosticism is merely skepticism about one particular concept.

I am an agnostic atheist. I make no knowledge claims about a concept that is designed to defy evidence one way or the other, *and* I also don't believe in god(s) for lack of evidence, and the slippery concept involved.

Agnosticism is the skeptical heart of any scientific exploration - the leaving open of possibilities. Some would call that skepticism, but skepticism is the heart of both science and agnosticism. If you imagine there is not more room for exploration, exploration stops. What N. deGrasse Tyson called a perimeter of ignorance. Although he spoke specifically about God-belief, I suspect we can consider it also true of any claim or concept that puts further investigation out of bounds. I also include "knowledge" is that group of claims/concepts that halt inquiry.

Open and free inquiry is necessary, *NECESSARY*, to continued human development. Period. If you want to continue human development, then you *MUST* maintain a skeptical core that questions what you think you know. Fail in that and you fail yourself and everyone around you.

Dogmatic atheists are not useful in the continued exploration. For every dogmatic, exclusionary atheist, there are 20 or more dogmatic theists who are just as "certain" about their truth. The dogmatic atheist is a drain on our thought processes and a reversion into "belief = knowledge" garbage.

Agnosticism merely points at a particular concept and says,"We cannot know this." They are simply correct about "knowing" about the God-concept. Sometimes you have to point at the flaws of a concept to start accounting for it. More thoughtful agnostics seem to do this, as do I.

Those who are interested in science will recognize that need as well, understanding that hypotheses must have empirical referents or they become matters of wild inference.

I don't have a problem with someone not believing in god(s) - I don't believe in god(s) either - but asserting it as a knowledge claim is the same idiot mistake theists have made for ages. We do not advance the subject matter that way, and it plays right into the theists' hands, portraying atheism as just another belief system.

We must rise above that. Agnosticism/skepticism allows us the room we need to do so. Dogmatic atheism is just more of the same hunkering down, entrenched in irrational and enthusiastic quasi-certainty.

I am not defending a "fence sitting." I am defending the possibility of inquiry. Stop relying on jaundiced soundbites you hide behind and fucking think!

We need skepticism. We need the recognition of fallibility. Agnosticism is merely skepticism about one particular concept.

Polarization

Polarization is the theme of the moment in our culture. Calm, rational, critical thought is falling aside in the face of the screaming. Atheists are not immune to its twisted allure, it seems.

One of the sad things is it's almost an inevitable outcome. Religious people proclaim their "certainty" at the top of their lungs and with absolute confidence, and many atheists feel the need to do the same just to be heard. That's part of how theists "win." To fight them we risk becoming them, unless we are very, very careful. What was that quote about battling not with monsters again...?

Stipulating Stipulations

Daring to Talk About Something Else...

So, let's take a short break from the ideological campaign seeking to sweep through atheism/skepticism and talk about something else, related, but not specific to that onerous topic.

Given that my primary means of promoting my blog is Facebook, it is likely that many of my readers, are themselves Facebook participants and internet debaters just like yours truly. How many of you have experienced the joy of the theist who tries to tell us what atheism is, using definitions that hobble inquiry and do not align with atheists' understanding of atheism?

Hell, even within atheism we have people trying to impose a definition of atheism that includes ideological content ... Sorry. That slipped out. ;)

Atheism Qua Denial

One common ploy is to claim that atheism necessarily represents a knowledge claim (which they will then, apparently unaware of the excruciating irony, say is unsubstantiated), a denial - which leads to all kinds of stuff about proving a negative, etc., etc.. From there, theists will often claim that atheism is a dogma and a faith. Now, let's be honest. There are dogmatic atheists out there, who claim that they know there is is/are no god(s). Personally, I see these folks as making the same epistemological error as the theists, and, sadly, these dogmatic atheists do offer ammunition for theists' complaints. However, that there are dogmatic atheists does not entail that all atheists make that error. Actually, in most case I have encountered, most seemingly dogmatic atheists are really expressing their view forcefully because that is what is expected in what people call argument.

And this is, in part, why my preferred definition of atheism is "lack of belief in god(s)." It has many benefits:
(1) It is ideology-free.
(2) It is inclusive.
(3) It is focused on a precise subject matter.
(4) It avoids epistemological issues surrounding most certainty claims.

This ploy of conflating atheism with knowledge claims is why we often see apologists unable to distinguish coherently between atheism and agnosticism. No, agnosticism is not just a weaker version of atheism. They are about different subject matters. For the record, yours truly is an agnostic atheist. The definition of God does not admit of verification/refutation, so knowledge of God's existence is impossible. I make no knowledge claims. At the same time, I lack belief in god(s). Despite the mewlings of apologists, this is not a contradiction.

Axiomatic Truths

Some people treat definitions like they are written in stone, absolute, inflexible, inviolable, immutable truths. In fact we create and revise definitions based on utility. As someone who has studied philosophy, I can tell you that often philosophers create new terms to express new ideas or refine existing ones. When one is working with abstract or very precise concepts, it is often necessary to make sub-distinctions and/or new definitions in order to more precisely describe or advance the subject matter.

The matter becomes even more ... interesting ... when we are speaking of definitions about social constructs or conventions (especially normative ones) which do not have any firm empirical basis.

However, even if we are talking about a field with hard empirical reference, our understanding of the empirical data may change over time, and new terms are created to reflect that. There was a time when earth, wind, fire and water were considered the "elements." Modern chemistry and physics now uses "elements" to refer to over a hundred precise atomic entities. What is it, 118 as of last count? Further, energies and forces and a host of other words have been added to the repertoire in order to deal with yet another feature of reality. As our understanding expands, our lexicon grows and becomes more precise.

Now, one can easily see how absurd it is to have the Funk & Wagnalls (a common dictionary) dictate the discourse in a very specialized subject matter. Your average theoretical physicist is not going to constrain their work to the dictates of the Funk & Wagnalls. The Funk & Wagnalls was a *general* reference, not one precise to a specific subject matter with very precise terminology. The same is true of any specialized field of study, including philosophy (epistemology). For these there are specialized texts including much more precise language. This is why course materials include textbooks, and not just the Funk & Wagnalls. So, if you want to talk about philosophical definitions, it might be wise to refer to something a little more specialized than the Funk & Wagnalls. How about http://plato.stanford.edu/ for starters. Even then, we must keep in mind that there is developing work, not yet represented in the encyclopedia. As atheism develops, it might be wise to consult the negotiations among atheists about what it means - and there are very, shall we say, vigorous negotiations underway...

Funk & Wagnalls is no longer, but its name is fun to say, so... ;)
Insert your favourite general dictionary name as desired.

It's Chaos, I tells ya! Pure CHAOS!

The language is not static. However, there are folks who don't like new ideas and latch onto previous definitions with a fanatical tenacity - usually from an agenda-driven perspective. Dictionaries change over time as natural usages of words evolve. It is not the case that language adheres (with fanatical devotion) to the dictionary; the dictionary evolves as the language does. Dictionaries, by necessity, lag behind the current state of the language. The internet perhaps reduces this lag (yes, gamers, bitterly laugh away), but doesn't eliminate it altogether.

While it is true that common definitions are, to some degree, necessary for conversations to occur (there's a reason why your average Joe is not a theoretical physicist and rarely converses coherently about technical matters with theoretical physicists), this does not mean that the language is forever fixed. To fix our stipulations in place would be to deny ourselves opportunity to advance any subject matter. Of course, that's what some people want...

I discuss we atheists defining ourselves now in another of my earlier blogposts:
By Atheists, of Atheists, and for Atheists

Dicktionary Theists

Now, religious apologists often choose to use definitions that service their desires, but all that's going to do is leave them bereft of understanding. If you want to find out what atheism means, consult atheists, not theists who contrive their understandings specifically to counter atheism. If you consult atheists, you might learn something about what we think and how we think (as opposed to what you think we think and how you think we think).

It seems to me that what we have here is a case of talking past each other (put more charitably perhaps, a negotiation of what the word "atheist" means). So, what does "atheism" mean? The word is even under negotiation among atheists, with "lack of belief" being the rising star (it avoids certain epistemological traps theists are prone to and try to set for us). Otherwise, enjoy choking on the dust of the rest of us leaving you behind. I'll wave to you in the rear view mirror as a passing courtesy. :)

AtheismFree (TM)

Stop the Experiments!

Imagine if someone walked into a laboratory and told the scientists to revise their test results because it didn't fit with cherished notions of the day. Imagine if that someone said that no experiments that might reach that unfavorable result could be conducted, or even talked about being conducted. Imagine if ideology-based "facts" were introduced as lab results. Imagine if orthodoxy requirements replaced error-correction.

What do you think would become of science?

Atheism, and even skepticism, are in crisis right now, looking at restipulations based on ideological demagoguery rather than on any honest effort to get at the facts of the inquiry. Atheism+ is really atheism minus even the attempt at talking about descriptive reality.

Are we now going to say that any scientific result that doesn't agree with some feminist assertion must be revised so that it does? When Bush tried to introduce "faith-based" evidence into science, the effort was resisted, because it would undermine the error-correction methodology of the scientific enterprise. When Shermer tried to equate skepticism with his radical political and economic ideology, libertarianism, he was left, quite properly, licking his wounds.

Think I am overstating the case? Now we see FtB seeking to impose ideological orthodoxy requirements on its bloggers. This undermines the unlimited scope necessary for open inquiry. Whatever else the FtB may be, it is not about free thought. If we are going to revert back into only inquiring about what we are permitted to inquire about, then we might as well go back to the Church-led dark ages.

I have met atheists who are not epistemologically rigorous - the ones who think they "know with certainty" that god(s) do not exist. I have met atheists who have radically different opinions on social policy than I do. I have met atheists who do not share my skeptical perspective on conspiracy theories and woo. I have met atheists who believe in UFOs and/or ESP. They are still atheists. Agreeing or not with me on these matters does not make them not atheists.

So, when are freethinkers going to get around to defending free thought? When are skeptics going to get around to defending skepticism? When are atheists going to get around to defending atheism? When are the rational going to get around to defending reason?

When are inquirers going to get around to defending free inquiry?

This Humanist

I am a philosophical skeptic, an atheist and a humanist - in that order. I do not claim that humanism is true; I am a skeptic after all. Nor do I claims that humanism is essential to atheism. In my view, atheism is skepticism with regard to a particular claim. I understand that however much I love humanism, it is not a necessary component of atheism - a separate subject matter. *That* recognition is what not letting ideologies dictate your inquires is. Just because I like it doesn't mean it is objective fact. Realizing that is intellectual integrity. Well, just because you like it (whatever "it" is) doesn't mean it is objective fact either. Normative values are not empirical facts. That I, or you, like it or dislike it does not make it any less or any more of a fact. It's easy to see how the other person's ideological stances are not a consequence of atheism. It is not so easy to do so with one's own. That blindered thinking is what we are seeing in so called Atheism+.

People may feel it is a matter of opinion whether there are god(s) or not, but whether there are god(s) or not is not a matter of opinion. Understanding the difference between these is critical to empirical study, indeed any study that strives to be objective (like skepticism, which is not just about empirical matters). It is a clear and precise understanding of the descriptive/prescriptive distinction that I champion - that and the unlimited scope of inquiry necessary for progressing any subject matter. Somebody has to, or we will slip back into the darkness of dogmatic orthodoxy again.

The Pernicious

So what can be more disgraceful than a scientist, a skeptic, an atheist who cannot comprehend the difference between description and prescription?

When Myers squeaks derisively of the "textbook definition" of atheism, I wonder what he is talking about. I mean, what exactly is the non-textbook definition of atheism that allows ideologies to annex atheism in their name? If only you believe what I believe? That would be very Church-orthodoxy of one, would it not? Which "atheism" with which ideological content is the right one and how are we supposed to tell? Science works, in part, because it is very precise in its terms, its jargon, its concepts. Precision in language offers precision in thought. How often do you see scientists say, "We have decided to abandon our jargon, the language that leads to clarity and precise inquiry, careful calculation and rigorous discussion. Now we are going to refer to all sciencey content as 'stuff.'"

Because, you see, that is what Atheism+ is in the vision of the ideological demagogues. Atheism is now "stuff" that includes all their stuff while excommunicating anyone who dares critique the cherished stuff. And guess who gets to decide what is the proper stuff?

Once upon a time, atheism was about whether there are or are not god(s). More recently, in response to theistic epistemological traps, atheism started talking about belief states with respect to the existence of god(s). Now it is about being nice? Well, theists have been saying forever that atheism is not nice but we persevered, focused on the real subject matter - not about how palatable the ideological sheep thought the subject matter was. Atheism+ is another variant of the "militant atheist" meme. "If you don't agree with my ideology, STFU!" I don't think so.

In the meantime, the theists are laughing their heads off at us for getting bogged down in the quagmire of ideological stuff, all reinforcing their mistaken claim that atheism is just another ideology. A claim we have, until recently, at least tried to mitigate with some attempts at objectivity, back when we thought is such terms. Once upon a time we went to great lengths to talk about the facts, or lack thereof. Now ideological elements within atheism are fueling theistic claims, not just by following their own ideology, but by tring to impose it on everyone else - on pain of being excommunicated from the conversation. This is a rot from within. This is apologism for a non-God ideology.

You know, sooner or later some clever feminist is going to hit upon the idea that feminist orthodoxy could be more easily imposed on others if it were painted as God's will. What do think atheism will become then?

If "Atheism+" takes hold, we will have to begin our struggle for objectivity all over again. Atheism permits inquiries that God-content formerly prohibited. Atheism does not require ideological orthodoxy. We do not do honest inquiry any favours by replacing one ideological orthodoxy with another.

AtheismFree (TM)*

*TM = Trade Mark.

I think I shall stick to my "AtheismFree." Atheism free of orthodoxy requirements and ideological demagoguery. Atheism that can focus on the actual subject matter, free of fallacies of relevance. Atheism for anyone and everyone. Or in other words, atheism.

I think I shall also stick with a definition of free thought that actually leaves people free to think. Imagine that!

Sente

Here's a nice, short one, barely a comment...

I often say, "Doubt is not denial." It's almost a mantra for me, because people confuse the two so astonishingly often, usually deliberately.

The Japanese have a term for the game Go. It is "sente." The closest English translation is "initiative." Your opponent is said to have sente when you are spending your game actions responding to your opponent's moves. Those who play chess will be familiar with this sorry state, helplessly having your moves dictated to you by your opponent. A game of chess, and Go, is about controlling the game, dictating the course of game events.

Theists make a claim about the existence of God. This claim is presented as an affirmation, the baseline for the discussion. If you question this affirmation, you are said to be denying it, and your question is said to be a negative act of denial. This is called controlling the discourse. The theist causes the skeptic to respond to the affirmation. Sente. The skeptic is depicted as denying. Doubt and denial are falsely conflated with each other, and skeptical doubt gets painted as denialism.

Do you let the theist seize sente? Do you think skepticism is denial?

And this, in part, is why we are seeing a rise in a definition of atheism as a "lack of belief in god(s)." It changes the discourse baseline and denies the disingenuous theist sente.

And this perhaps, helps clarify my snippet:
The logical contradiction of "believing A" is not "believing not-A."
The logical contradiction of "believing A" is "not believing A."
First 30 seconds of an intro logic course; the definition of "not."

This difference is critical, because there is more than one way of "not believing A," one of which is skeptical doubt, which is not denial.

Be the Test Subject

Hard-hat warning. Rampant exploration ahead...

"I really feel, very strongly, that we shouldn't, you know, just SHOULDN'T, use normative language."

This was a snippet I crafted while in a Laurie Anderson mood. Yes, I was being flippant at the time, but it does suggest something interesting, does it not? It uses normative language to prescribe not using normative language.

When I was a young man, taking my first course in analytic ethics, I encountered this idea of a moral prescription and wondered what it was - how it worked. The textbook told me that it was intimately connected with words like "should," "ought," (and their contradictories), "good," "evil," and others, so I thought I'd try a little experiment. I decided to surgically remove these words from my natural discourse, my everyday speech. It quickly became apparent to me how prevalent these words and words like it are, and how subtly they are interwoven into our language.

Now, of course, we use "should/ought" in a couple of very different ways. In one sense, these words represent an expectation. Striking a nail firmly enough with a hammer "should" drive it into the board. This use of "should" is a prediction, not necessarily based on any normative considerations. This is not the meaning of "should" I was seeking to find, but it does end up becoming part of the context, in that many of our expectations are moral ones. Indeed one could argue that morality is a realm of reasonable expectations...

It is the other sense that really caught my attention as a student of analytic ethics. It is the use in which we pretend that something is to be the case based on a desire or a command (it's even hard to depict this without using those words). It is interesting to note that "should" serves a command function in our everyday language use. This is subtly disguised by a lack of direct reference to the commander.

"Do X" is a command referencing the speaker as the commander, X as the thing to be done, and the person spoken to as the one commanded. "You should do X" again gives us the X (the thing to be done), refers to the person spoken to as the commanded, but leaves the commander much less well-defined. This has the effect of making it hard to point at the commander and argue with it. Now, theists will say that the commander is God, and it is intrinsically ridiculous to argue with God, since God is, by definition, always Right in His commands. Without god(s), as moral commanders, suddenly the commander becomes obviously the speaker again and that leaves room for debate whereas before, no such room existed.

Trying to avoid prescribing normatively, I restated "oughts" and "shoulds" as if-then "must" or "expect" conditionals. If you value X, then you must Y. This kept me from asserting or "affirming" X. This had the interesting effect of distancing myself from my own normative evaluations. I started to define myself, not so much in terms of the values I held, but in my ability to recognize my own values for what they were - normative constructs, and what they weren't - facts/truths. In this way, I was able to look past my own biases and was able to start taking responsibility for not just my actions, but also my attitudes. And that's something theists never do; take responsibility for their attitudes. They don't see attitudes/values as something they have. They see them as something they are, and this is no small difference.

One of the greatest catastrophes of the Ancient Greek philosophical traditions is this idea of "living a philosophy." Of defining yourself in terms of this or that philosophical stance. We see it at work today, with phrases like, "stick to your guns," and "don't ever let them change who you are." This sentiment I find nonsensical. When did "don't change your mind" become a positive thing? When did refusing to learn and grow become a value?

This experiment is one I recommend to everyone, even if done only casually (I dedicated three years and then much of the rest of my life to it) if you wish to understand how these words work and what they mean in natural use. But more, if you wish to understand how normative-evaluative language controls your discourse and your thinking. It's not easy at first, but gets easier as time goes on - as you develop the skill. It's like being a skeptic, holding that possibility that one might be mistaken, firmly in one's mind. I often hear people say things like "well, no one can be skeptical of everything." Seriously? You can't hold the possibility that you might be in error at all times? Sure you can. It's easy, with practice.

What this experiment really did was help to illustrate with remarkable clarity the difference between a description and a prescription. A statement of fact and a command/desire. This is a skill I think we desperately need today. And this is also how I came to science philosophically - by recognizing my own biases at work, seeking to correct for them, not just when applied to the facts, but also in recognizing *how* I was making errors and how the language encourages me to make these errors - to impose my will on others with subtle command structures. With prescriptivity.

Prescriptivity (and normative language) is a self-referential web of command functions designed to influence you and to allow you to exert influence over others. This about control and use of them is about controlling others. And that, is the business of religion. But, what does it say about us that we think everyone else needs to be controlled?

This is why my working definition of religion is "a prescriptive philosophy."

An Interview with Yours Truly

A friend from across the globe has elected to do some interviews with atheists for his blog and decided to include yours truly. As an exercise in self-indulgence (and because I state things reasonably clearly here), here is the interview (warts and all) in its entirety as he presents it on his blog:
Cosmic Stories

OK. I did add some paragraph breaks. ;)

Without Further Ado...

Q: What is your name?

Dglas: Gregory Douglas Teed. Hence the name I use online, “Dglas.”

Q: So, you are a philosopher and an atheist? Why don’t you believe in God?

Dglas: I don’t have any reason to believe in God. There is no evidence for such an entity. Indeed it is specifically defined such that evidence simply does not apply. Recognizing the nature of that definition makes one realize that we can define any host of things that way. If we believed things based on such definitions, there’d be a whole lot of things we’d be believing – like that malicious gremlins (who can only be appeased by sacrificing bowlfuls of Lucky Charms) cause car engine knocks. For me to believe something, there has to be a reason to believe it.

And then, my “belief” is contingent and subject to change if the evidence warrants a change. My beliefs do not exist outside of reality. My beliefs are about reality and are thus governed by reality.

Q. Some people would say that you don’t want to see the evidence of God.

Dglas: Yes, some do say that.

What I do or do not want is irrelevant. More importantly, however, is that I am no sole arbiter of what is or is not the case. I have bad eyesight, but I do not imagine that looking over the rims of my glasses actually changes reality just because it looks different to me. My perceptions are flawed, just like anyone else’s. We need a better standard of evaluation that just “seeing the signs.” We need something that tempers human fallibility, including my own – or that at least tries. Mere confirmation bias is not a good basis for understanding reality.

Q. I have heard to William Craig, the famous christian preacher. Why is there anything instead of nothing?

Dglas: Many questions expect certain kinds of answers – they are leading questions. “Why are we here?” often expects a certain kind of answer – usually a purpose-oriented one. If you can accept an evolutionary explanation for why we are here, then that answer will be satisfactory. If not, then that answer will not seem satisfactory. Craig’s question is such a leading question, although it requires much more work than our scope here permits. Why would anyone ever assume that there can be nothing to contrast with something?

Q. You don’t believe that there is any evidence of God. But God has always been associated with ethics and morality. Where do the Atheists get their morality from?

Dglas: Unicorns have always been associated with virginity and purity too.

Technically atheism is only about the existence or non-existence of god(s). Questions of ethics are separate and apart from that, but at least atheism opens the door for a model of ethics that isn’t just a tyrant holding us down. To answer the question though, most atheists I have encountered get their morality from their society and the people around them. Many understand morality to be a negotiated social construct rather than a top-down assignment of forbiddings. Personally, I think this is a better model for morality than what gods offer us, since it involves some negotiation and agreement. I think that one important thing to realize about the state of modern atheism right now is that it is in transition, developing it’s own path.

Q. But, weren’t Hitler and Stalin atheists?

Dglas: Hitler professed to be a Christian, and often used appeals to Christianity to push his totalitairianism. Personally, I find the “What was Hitler?” disputes (I won’t even dignify them by calling them debates) childish. In my view he was a ruthless opportunist using anything he could get his paws on to promote his own personal power. The masses could be swayed with Christian noises, so he made Christian noises. As for Stalin, the matter is more complicated, by very similar. Stalin sought to replace Christianity with a state loyalty – effectively another religion. What his motives are are a matter of opinion, but I would say this: atheism itself is less than accommodating of religions – including state-based religions. Again, of course, questions of existence of god(s) and questions of ethics are separate subject matters.

What is more interesting is how these noises could be used to sway the masses. Being a believer seems to make one susceptible to suggestion…

Q. You are a philosopher. How does it helps you to resolve the everyday problems of life?

Dglas: Technically, I am not a philosopher. I am philosophically-minded. However, that said, philosophy, as inquiry, allows one a broader perspective that allows for more possibilities in one’s thinking. I suspect I adapt to new information better than your average believer, because I’m not busy seeking to deny new information on the basis of this or that unsubstantiated faith. Faith does not interfere with my acuity or ability to learn. I can approach problems from a wide variety of different angles, rather than just trying to brute-force my way with the established doctrines.

Q. So, Greg, are you married?

Dglas: No.

Q. I have heard that many atheists do not believe in marriage. Are you one of them?

Dglas: Here’s my take. Marriage is merely a symbolic ritual. What matters is the relationship between the people involved. If that’s not enough to sustain you, then you are living a lie. Unfortunately, the symbolic rituals usually involve introducing doctrinal nonsense into the relationship – poisoning the relationship. My story of becoming an anti-theist has to do with just such a poisoning. The religious may not claim my personal life – it is not theirs for the redefining into their hobbled little framework. That said, I really have no issue whatsoever with marriage. My reasons for not getting married are really my own and involve a lot of factors that others may not be familiar with.

I cannot speak for others on this.

Q. So you believe in only those thinsg that can be proved. What about Love?

Dglas: I am not entirely convinced love is anything but a homeostatic imbalance.

More seriously, love seems to be a social construct as well, subject to negotiated public and private understandings. There are physiological and bio-chemical underpinnings to love, it seems, but the general understanding of these seems subject to interpretation.

Q. Many people think that atheists are cold and distant, that they do not understand things like poetry and beatuty. What is your take on that?
Dglas: I think that’s nonsense. Why has understanding of art been associated with supernatural conceptions. I am a fan of music, despite that the dance of notes can be depicted mathematically. I think this misconception has to do with the idea that without mystery there is no wonder, but in my experience, and seemingly the experience of many atheists, wonder is a vital part of our existence. Our most popular speakers, past and present, like Dr. Sagan for example, speak of the joy of exploration, discovery, and inquiry. For my own part I am proud of humanity when it pushes the boundaries of our knowledge and understanding. Every new discovery, every new advancement exhilarates me. There is a reason why we are typically systematic in our understandings – it helps us grow. Of course, many atheists are also humanists, which is not exactly a cold and analytical perspective. One of my reasons for being an anti-theist is that “I prefer Hobbits happy and free, to Hobbits in chains.” For many of us, it seems, the future is a wonderland of possibilities, open and limitless. Compared to that, the “end of times” visions of the religious seem desperately poor in their poverty.

Q. If there is no god then who created the universe?

Dglas: What makes you think there is a someone who created the universe? For that matter what makes you think the universe ever did not exist, much less was “created?” That is a leading question that expects a certain kind of answer and I think I covered that already.  One does not answer leading questions. One points at their leading nature and laughs at them for trying to control the discourse.

Q. Still there are billions of religious people in the world. Do you take these people as partners or enemies in your endeavor to make a greater change in the world.

Dglas: We are all engaged in a grand enterprise, a planet-wide negotiation of who and what we are and of who and what we might be. We need variety of perspective in order to have a wide diversity of ideas and material to work with. Some, I think, approach the negotiating table dishonestly with no interest in compromise or possibilities. I do not see the people as “enemies.” I see dogma as an affliction that hobbles could-be allies in that grand exploration. I see orthodoxy requirements as a means of halting discussion, of silencing critical inquiry, of limiting possibilities. I see them as potential allies who could be friends if only they didn’t have this intellectual/emotional disease, this dogma, telling them to hate me and to hate humanity. Dogma, including religious dogma, is antithetical to change. It is a cage of the mind. Our understandings of self are a negotiated social construct as well. I add my voice to the negotiation advocating that we be more than just a caged animal.

Q. Thank you Greg for your support and honest answers. I wish you luck in your life.

Dglas: Thank you. I hope I have been helpful in some way.

Fluffistry Unchallenged

So, I say in my introduction blurb, "I am a skeptic, a real one - both scientific and philosophical with unlimited scope of inquiry." What does that mean? Let's start with the not quite hidden evil twin of agnostic atheism:

The Evil Twin

Nowadays, and I push for this as well, atheists are in the process of defining themselves. The rising star is atheism as a "lack of belief" rather than a "belief in lack." This avoids certain epistemological issues and heals the rift between agnosticism and atheism. Oh, buy, does that ever piss the theists off. They no longer get to control the discourse. I often sense their panic setting in. Thta said...

It is possible for someone to be a dogmatic atheist - not relying on skeptical reasoning for their belief and/or claiming that their atheism is a knowledge claim. At that point skeptical doubt is not being universally or rigorously applied.

Beware the new age definition of skepticism. That definition limits the scope of inquiry and decimates the primary function of skepticism - protection from dogma.

Scientific "Skepticism"

Modern "scientific skepticism" defines things entirely in terms of empirical evidence (this admittedly aligns itself with science), effectively claiming that non-empirical matters are beyond the scope of skeptical inquiry. Hence a whole non-empirical realm of "woo" is deemed off-limits to skeptical inquiry. This is the underlying effect of NOMA (Non-Overlapping Magisteria). Thus you see skeptical organizations attacking "woo" that has empirical references, but holding "woo" without empirical reference immune to skeptical inquiry. This, of course, is loved by the apologists and accommodationists who wish to selectively decide what does and what does not get called into question. The primary example of course, is that the greatest, most dangerous and pervasive "woo" of them all is left unchallenged by scientific skepticism - God. And that, ultimately, is why the Pope has never received a Pigasus.

So, how did we get to this miserable state. Well, this may come as a shock to some, but religion was not always tempered by considerations like reason and honesty. Basically think of religion as being temporarily papertrained. Stop watching it, and will start pissing all over everything again (current American/Canadian politics display this only too vividly). In order for a fledgling movement to avoid getting squished like a bug under religion's heel, certain compromises were made. NOMA was developed and made part of the agenda. Now, "skeptical" organizations are effectively under the heel of apologists and accommodationists. The justification now is theists "being welcome," but whatever the justification, the result is the same - a hobbled scope of skeptical inquiry.

The JREF's Shame

That is one of the reasons I have such a profound disrespect for the JREF. The last MDC (Million Dollar Challenge) I saw was an hour or more long live videofeed of Jeff Wagg's crotch as some poor, deluded backwater woman tried to prove she could make him urinate with the power of her brain. I kid you not. Meanwhile, God remains unchallenged and the Pope still does not have a Pigasus.

The other reason has to do with free and open inquiry, but that's a story for another time.

Worse, with the new age definition of skepticism, ideologies are also outside the scope of "skeptical" inquiry. Hence we get people like Shermer and Watson seeking to annex skepticism as a niche market for their personal ideologies and demagoguery (and sometimes mere cliquish popularity contests). Ideologies are non-empirical, as are values. Hence we see Shermer's clam that "pure skepticism" is sterile and unproductive. This is, of course, utter nonsense - we can work from posited starting points just as easily as we can from dogmatically believed ones. Uncertainty does not necessarily equate to indecision or helplessness.

Shunning Your Allies in Favour of Your Enemies

What this hobbled definition really amounts to is a disdaining of anyone who has the temerity to think in any but empirical terms. Which is all well and good, until again, you encounter an ideology, or a claim that is presented in such a fashion that it does not admit of empirical verification/refutation (such as God). Whether ideologies are empirical or not, they do have real influence and real empirical effects. I hold that we cannot afford to leave the other magisteria unchallenged, to the dogmatic nutjobs.

And that is when you need pure or philosophical skepticism, because it also provides a defence against these "other magisteria" claims. That "other magisteria" is within the scope of philosophical inquiry.

The purpose of skepticism is not (merely) to indicate when a claim is false, but to indicate when a claim is not necessarily true. If we limit the scope of doubt to a very specific realm, then skepticism loses its ability to provide us with a doubt methodology for non-empirical matters (more properly said, we ignore that tool) - to provide us with a defense against mystical/metaphysical/non-empirical fluffistry. The ideologues and dogmatists are left a whole realm where they are left unchallenged. And, you see, this is where I, as a philosophical skeptic, differ from the mere scientific skeptics. I recognize no artificial limits on the scope of skeptical inquiry. I can meet the dogmatists, the mystics, the ideologues, and the demagogues on their own turf and soundly thrash them there, rather than just pretending they can be ignored - because they can't. They have influence, like it of not, and I think the evidence bears that out.

So, I am a scientific skeptic, but I am also a philosophical skeptic, with an unlimited scope of skeptical inquiry. The apologists and accommodationist influences who seek to hobble and contain inquiry within their very specific parameters can go to hell, straight to hell, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

Dishonest Skepticism

Fortunately, many people extend their skepticism beyond the scope of scientific skepticism and that stopped Shermer in his tracks not that long ago (and has also resulted in a strong correlation between skeptics and atheists) when he tried to equate skepticism with his radical political and economic ideology (libertarianism), Whether it will be enough to halt Watson before she turns the whole enterprise into a polarized shouting match and skepticism is lost in the demagoguery is an open question. Getting polarized is easy - remaining unpolarized, not so much.

Unfortunately, many people extend their skepticism selectively so that their private gris-gris remains "beyond the scope." The principle of eschewing certainty gets shuffled off to a limited scope, defined, in part, by individual whim (which really equates to intuitionism). And that is the purpose behind Shermer's definition of skepticism. Hence we get silly claims like "no one can be skeptical of everything." Of course anyone can. Doubt is not denial. All it requires is the recognition of the possibility of error regardless of the subject matter, the eschewing of certainty with respect to all subject matters, including one's own cherished beliefs and preferences. I, for example, am a humanist by choice, but I do claim that humanism is The Truth!(TM).

Skepticism can be harsh, it'll tell you things you don't really want to hear, but it is absolutely loyal and will never tell you lies.

No True Skeptical Scotsman

Now, the intelligent design (cdesignproponentist) people tried to redefine science such that faith-based evidence was considered scientific. Most people with any grasp of science will realize that this utterly subverts science as a methodology of error-correction based on empirical evidence. After all, if adopted, the ID mentality will now base error-correction on the whims of faith. In this way intelligent design completely decimates the primary function of scientific inquiry.

So it is with artificially limited scope and skepticism. Skepticism is, first and foremost, a protection/defence against dogmatically held ideas - any ideas - including non-empirical ones. When we say that a subject mater is "beyond the scope" of skeptical inquiry, we are rendering ourselves defenseless against that other magisteria. Thus utterly decimates the primary function of skepticism.

This is what I mean when I say I am a true skeptic. It's not a fallacy; it's a recognition that skepticism has a function. Scientific skepticism is all well and good within its sphere, but the moment it tries to limit all skeptical critique to within that sphere (as Shermer and others have done), a terrible, terrible error is being made - usually by those who don't want their dogmas critiqued. Perhaps you would prefer I say, "a thoroughgoing skeptic?"

The Not-Truthiness

The Takedown

Following is a fun video "takedown" of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. It is interesting and worth the see, IMHO.

The "Takedown" of the Kalam Cosmological Argument

However, I wish to approach the subject matter from a different angle...

While Craig asserts that infinity is only a concept that doesn't exist in reality, why does he not afford the same courtesy to nothing? We build logical systems to help us understand and explain the world, but quite often because these logical systems involve boolean values, yea or nay, we assume that these absolute values are entailed by the logical system themselves and, therefore, that they translate into reality or "map onto" reality - but this need not be the case. Concepts like infinity arise from an unending progression and concepts like nothing arise from as idea of a perfect absence. There is nothing to suggest that these "perfect" states exist in reality.

While the video is all well and good, and interesting, I suspect the real "takedown" is in understanding the difference between synthetic and analytic arguments. The Kalam Cosmological Argument is an entirely analytic argument, as is the Ontological Argument.

The Ontological Argument relies on existence being a necessary condition for perfection, but from whence cometh perfection? Perfection seems to me an extension of idealistic thinking, completely divorced from reality, and a mere logical contrast to imperfection. To say that perfection necessarily entails existence is to make a baseless assumption - that perfection is existent or even possible. Claiming that that there is perfection refers not to any feature of reality - please do point to it if you can - but rather to a definition derived entirely from a logical structure - an implication of the terms involved. Nothing more. So when the Ontological Argument goes from "existence is a property of perfection" to "therefore God exists" what we have is an equivocation of the word "exist." Analytic existence is not equivalent to synthetic existence.

More Than One Truth-(Value)

And it is no surprise this happens, since logical "truth" is often equivocated with "empirical" (or "synthetic") truth. We have been engaged in propping up this error for millennia and I suspect this equivocation of truth is responsible for much, especially, theological error. It is, of course, trivia to create a valid argument that is not sound. This proves that logical truth values are not empirical truth. To find out empirical or synthetic truth you actually have to check with reality, something neither the Ontological nor Cosmological arguments do, although they end up making a claim that we are supposed to take as empirical/synthetic.

The nifty thing about entirely analytic arguments is that reality is not a function within them - no empirical reference is made prior to the assertion about reality. In this way terms in the premises represent equivocations of similar terms in the conclusion.

As given in the video, the Kalam Cosmological Argument goes:
Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist
Therefore the universe has a cause
And that cause is God.

Leaving aside the non-sequitur of the universe having a cause leading to that cause being God... ;)

The real problem here is the word "begins/began." Defenders of the KCA assume that beginning involves arising from nothing, hence their constant mockery that anyone who argues against the KCA is assuming the something arises from nothing. Now a careful examination reveals this to be a mere matter of definition - and analytical function, with no clear reference to reality. The matter seems persuasive because science makes a similar working assumption with regards to causality in order to do its work. However, at no time, does science necessarily invoke the logical concept of nothing in the same way apologists like Craig do (except as an effort to make a dramatic title intended to sell books perhaps). Indeed a recent understanding of the "origins of the universe" seem to posit the idea that there is never really any state of absolute nothing. Hence the "dilemma" presented by the KCA apologists is simply bypassed. And there is no particular reason why this cannot be done, since our understanding of "nothing" is merely the placing of a negation in front of "something." The logical nothing is not necessarily empirical nothing. To confuse them is, in my opinion, to equivocate the word "nothing."

Referencing Reality

The trick now is to make sure the new physics cosmology refers to empirical reality, and that's where things get interesting. Then it is an exercise in developing experiments from the theory that confirm or refute. We'll know whether the theory is interesting or not when we are provided the falsifiability in the theory.

I am not confident that replacing one entirely analytic argument with another does much for us except display the cleverness of everyone involved. Of course, science provides us the benefit of actually referring to reality - at least most of the time.

Which brings to mind string theory, but that's a topic for another time... ;)

Utopian Dreams

God is in everything.

God is in the bell used in circumcisions and the knife wielded in female genital mutilation. God is in the wail of agony and the state of shock of the baby. God is in the poverty, despair, and torment of the destitute. God is in the bot fly and the tapeworm and the virus. God is in the cancer cell. God is in the acid thrown in women's faces. God is in the umbilical cord wrapped around the unborn's neck. God is in nuclear weapons, and jelly babies, and natural (and unnatural) disasters.

God is in the idea that "glory" is about the ability to inflict suffering and death. God is in describing murder as "honour." God is in depicting psychopathy as divine inspiration. God is in morality as a bait and punish mentality. God is in visions of retribution as "justice." God is in human beings being seen as mere chaff in dogmatic meat grinders - as pieces in a numbers game. God is in every bullet in the brain pan of "the enemy." God is in every ingenious torture device devised to spread the "good news."

God is in the inquisition. God is in holocausts. God is in crusades. God is in jihads. God is in death fatwahs. God is in "moral" demands that others die. God is in every pogrom and in every belief that you are among the chosen ones. God is in throwing rocks at helpless people until they die. God is in inculcating fear, self-loathing and hatred in children. God is in violent polarization. God is in every dream of orthodoxy, of "winning" the competitions between religions - whatever the cost.

God is in every vague, metaphysical terror. God is in every superstition. God is in all horror. God is in every supernatural justification for violence, death, and imprisonment.

God is in every failed hope, every broken dream, every devastated life. God is in every loved-one's death, however slow and torturous. God is in every dream of dominance and control. God is in every rapist's heart.

God is in division, malice, and shunning. God is in every "murder by numbers." God is in every segregationist policy.

God is an engine of conflict.

We have to do better than God.

The Argument from Utopian Idealism

It's *never* the ideal's fault, is it? It's *never* the Vedas, or the Bible, or the Torah, or the Koran, is it? It's never God, is it?

It's never communism's or capitalism's fault, is it? After all, they've never *really* been tried, right?

It's never dictatorship's fault, is it? It is always that the dictator wasn't benign - just like every other time before.

If only we had a benign dictator this time. If only we had God. Right?

The Dark Heart of Totalitarianism

Let's face the fact of it. Every God believer is a totalitarianist. They all desire the benign dictator. God believers are simply not ready for democracy.

Pernicious Accommodationism

Isn't this enough?
Won't you shut up now?
What's your problem?
What more do you want?
Will you never be happy?

How often have we heard these kinds of questions directed at atheists from apologists, or their hand-puppets, accommodationists?

Well, here it is again.

Dvorsky Vilifies Atheists

The First Psychosis

I'm going to let you in on a not so carefully hidden secret: the Abrahamic "Binding of Isaac" story is about the primacy of God, all other priorities rescinded. Read that again: All other priorities rescinded. That includes the lives of one's own children. That the final murder was "prevented" is of no relevance. The essential betrayal of humanity, represented by Abraham's willingness to murder his own child, is the point of the story - not whether the child actually died. Of course, there are many children who do not fare so well in their parents' test of faith. Madeline Kara Neumann is one example.

Homicide by Prayer

Kara Neuman died of diabetic ketoacidosis. Juvenile diabetes. See the picture above? Kara Neumann was a human being, not a statistic, and not a chess-piece in some ideological game about parents' versus childrens' rights.

Diabetic Ketoacidosis

Uncontrolled blood sugar levels leads to acidity of the blood and vital organs shut down, resulting in death. It is very likely Kara was "ill for about 30 days, suffering symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, excessive thirst, loss of appetite and weakness." These are the words of the Everest Metro Police Chief, reporting on the autopsy of the 11 year old girl.

The family believed in “divine healing” by trusting the Lord, Leilani Neumann, Kara's mother, said. “I just felt that, you know, my faith was being tested. I never went through an experience like that before in my life and I just thought, man, this is the ultimate test,” she said. “We just started praying and praying and praying over her.’

Kara's mother didn't think about seeking medical help for Kara. Leilani Neumann felt that her, Leilani's, faith was being tested. Kara was a means to an end, in Leilani's view. It was a test that Kara failed. Where was Kara during this struggle? Remember her, the 11 year old girl? She was busy dying of a treatable, controllable, and well understood medical condition.

A parent placing her own faith above the well-being of her child. Sound familiar? Kara Neuman's story is not an isolated case. Prayer healing is a well-known and pernicious affliction that claims children's lives on a seemingly regular basis. Want to know the harm of prayer? There it is. And behind it all is a psychosis that has its roots in the primacy of God - a deliberate distancing of oneself from humanity.

Humanistic Anti-Humanism? Seriously?

Why mention the "Binding of Isaac" story with respect to Dvorsky's article? Because one of the priorities rescinded is humanism. This story is precisely about relegating humanism and humanity to a distant back burner, behind God. It is precisely about overriding all mere human considerations in favour of something that is, by definition, extra-human.

The Abrahamic religions wear their anti-humanism on their sleeves, for all to see, but this does not mean this is unique to the Abahamic trinity of holy horrors. God, itself, is a symbol of a normative ideal, for which, they say, humanity is to strive to achieve, you know, from our intrinsically flawed and lowly state. In most cases, it is impossible to achieve this presumably exalted state. In one religion, God is not anthropomorphized, but the exalted state (Bodhi) is intrinsically unverifiable. In all cases, mere humanity is denigrated - in all cases we are taught to view humanity as metaphysically, and normatively, perhaps inexorable and necessarily flawed.

And people call that "humanism?" By what stretch of the imagination is anti-human ideology, wallowing in eternal hatred of humanity's lowly state, "humanism?" Remember, how in a previous post, I spoke of religion annexing human qualities into its perverted lexicon? There it is again, another example - a "humanism" that has nothing to do with humans, and instead focuses on the extra-human. Imagine that.

The Wrong Reasons

People point at the "good" done by "religious humanism." The charity. Meanwhile, churches are shutting down charity services rather than help those in need because some of those helped might be homosexuals - you know, humans. Why? Because homosexuality is against their religious bigotry. If your reason for helping humans is not humans, then you are doing it for the wrong reason.

And the reason matters. Otherwise, we get charity services being shut down on the basis of bigotry.

The Accommodationist Rot

So, how do I see Dvorsky and his article?

Dvorsky is just another bought and paid for, worthless accommodationist telling atheists, "Don't you think you've gone far enough now?" Meanwhile he is still using religious, absolutism-laced language, and is still perpetuating, indeed promoting, stigma against atheists.

Accommodationists are the rot from within, advancing anti-human apologist ideology and trying to paint atheists as the aggressors against poor, besieged religion. At least with apologists you know where they stand. Accommodationists are not even that honest. Skeptic and humanist groups and associations are infested with these pernicious liars.

They pretend to be the rational center against all extremes, but it is remarkable how one "extreme" gets all of the sympathy and the other all of the bile. That is not a reasonable middle ground - that is open advocacy of the extreme that seeks to keep us slaves of a hobbled mentality forever, while trying to silence those who would examine, critique and advocate against that slavery.

No, we atheists are not done yet because the job is unfinished. Religion still holds our human qualities in thrall, including our humaneness, as if religions own them, and religion is still fundamentally anti-humanist. We aren't even close to done yet. Until the primacy of God over mere humans is done away with, the job is not done. Not by a long shot.

Humanism must be about humans - of humans, by humans, and for humans. Nothing else will suffice.

I'm an atheist, but...

"I'm against religion, but...." Dvorsky, you are the problem, because you seek to enable anti-humanist mentalities and ideologies, by vilifying atheism. Can you say "perpetuating stigma?" Sure. I knew you could. Dvorsky is as bad, or worse, than the accommodationists that infest the "scientific skeptic" organizations, making sure that the worst, biggest, most dangerous "woo" of them all remains "beyond the scope" of skeptical inquiry. Well, not on this blog. I accept no limitations on the scope of inquiry and have no respect to the disingenuous liars who do. Nor do I respect accommodationists who say things like "I'm an atheist, but..." and then go on to vilify atheists. The religious right's hand is so firmly wedged up Dvorsky's ass that his speech is right-handed.

So-called "skeptics" who artificially limit the scope of inquiry are not the friends of open and honest inquiry. So-called "humanists" who advocate for subjugating human concerns under the primacy of God are not friends of humanity.

Atheism & Humanism

Let's be clear: Atheism does not, itself, have humanist content. Atheism means lack of belief in god(s). Nothing more. However god(s) often do have perceived content, chief among them the primacy of the god. This is why theists think that atheism has content - because atheism doesn't affirm the content of god(s). This also ties in with the theist's inability to comprehend that atheism is a lack of belief; not a belief. Fallacy of false alternatives.

By removing the pernicious anti/extra-human ideal, atheism provides opportunity for humanism, opportunity denied us by theologies that assume the primacy of God. By removing God, we are free to see humans as something more than mere chaff in a dogmatic meat grinder. We are free to see them as ends in themselves, not just as disposable means to an end. That is a significant step forward. It is not the end of the story, but it is a start, a start we cannot have as long as we think humans are subordinate to god(s).

It is not time for humanism to move away from atheism. It is time for humanism to embrace atheism as a shrugging off of the anti-human ideal, a shrugging off that gives us room for humanity in our considerations, room to learn and grow, room to be joyfully, unashamedly human. It is an interesting thing that many, if not most, atheists end up having humanistic dispositions, despite the dire prognostications of the theistic. There is a reason for that. The essential religious hatred of humanity, centered in the primacy of God, is dismissed by atheists. We atheists have moved beyond that. Isn't it about time humanism moved away from humanity-hatred as well...?

Not according to Dvorsky.

Yeah, I know. Suggesting that humans take back their humanity is radical, and extreme, and evil...

The In-Between Time

One Young Moral Nihilist

I want to take a moment, if I may, to yap about moral nihilism.

Despite the fact that, growing up, I was not "properly socialized,"  (read: indoctrinated) certain ideas did make their way into my understanding of things, just from the popular culture. One of these was the pernicious notion that morality stemmed from some absolute, objective, separate from humanity, authority. Generally, that authority bears the name "God." A consequent of this is that without that authority, there was no source for and hence no morality. Well, as I mentioned earlier, I am a "from the cradle" atheist - meaning that I was never indoctrinated into a faith. I think you can see an issue developing...

Perhaps I was victim of a Piagetan/Kohlbergian stage of moral development, but the issue came to a point early for me. Nevertheless, I remained, for the most part, a very lawful, by most accounts, moral individual. As I began studies in philosophy, I found that morals were obviously not empirical entities - were not things you could point to and say "there it is." Were not properties or qualities of objects, acts, or results. One could point at consequences and evaluate them, but not at the values/morals themselves. As I dismissed the idea of morals/value being objective/empirical things...

...I became a "moral nihilist." I used to go around saying things like, "There is no morality." "Morality is a lie." And the like.

Well, that was then; this is now. :)

You see, I was labouring under a misapprehension. Despite finding that morality was not in any sense objectively absolute, I was still defining morality in terms of objective absolutism. Add these together and you get nihilism. The reasoning is very simple:

All morality arises from absolute authority.
There is no absolute authority.
Therefore, there is no morality.

Seems bulletproof, doesn't it?

The Agenda of "Nihilism"

Now "nihilism" is a fun word, wrapped in negative connotations and derisive, vilifying inferences. Well, of course it is; it was a word used by moral absolutists (namely the religious) to describe, deliberately unflatteringly, those who rejected their vison of what morality is. It was, in effect, an ad hominem. Nihilists have no morality, and you are a nihilist, so therefore your arguments about morality are icky. (Sorry, there is just no way for me to depict this "argument" seriously).

This really had, it seems to me, one purpose. Ethical absolutists are not really bothered if you are moral or not, whether you accept or reject the particular morals of their particular view. Indeed, I would argue that absolutists want rejection of their morals in order to have an enemy to polarize around (remember the "mosque at ground zero" kerfluffle?), but that's a topic for another time. What they are really frightened of is the idea that you might define morality in other terms - human-centered terms. As long as you bought into the absolute-authority/truth definition of morality, a context in which you could be "legitimately" lauded or vilified could be maintained. Religions "despise" opposed religions, but what they all despise is someone who steps outside of their religious context. Religions love to hate each other, but it is the non-religious who are all religion's real enemy.

In this way, being a moral nihilist is really playing the absolutists' game. Liberation form the absolutists' "morality" comes not just from rejecting the divine authority, but also from revamping one's entire conception and perception of morality - it comes from redefining morality. Otherwise, you are still a thrall of, and subject to, the absolutists' context.

This consideration is what I mean when I speak of reclaiming our humanity from the religions. Morality is a human function, in a human context, but the religiouns have annexed it, redefined it in their hobbled, inhuman terms, and then imposed that redefinition on all of our discourse.

Do It Like You Mean It!

If you really want to dismiss absolutist morality, don't stop half way, don't stop in the in-between time. Don't just dismiss the absolute authority that is claimed to be the source of morality, but dismiss also the definition of morality that requires an absolute authority. Nihilism is a stepping stone away from absolutism. Take the next step. Think of morality in terms that really frighten the absolutist. Define morality in a different way.

In studies of analytic ethics, one encounters a number of moral theories with different perspectives. Some seek to find moral truth - sometimes empirically, sometimes psychologically, sometimes analytically (via definitions and inferences), and of course, sometimes metaphysically/mystically - some equate morality with emotive outbursts, some others ... let's just say that a great many clever minds have come up with a great many clever (and not so clever) ideas. Often these examinations involve breaking down morality into basic components, things like prescriptivity (the command force of moral language), universalizability (universal applicability of moral principles), and many others. This suggests something interesting about morality, actually.

What if it turned out there is no moral truth? What if it turned out morality were a negotiated social construct? What if morality was not true in some objective, extra-human manner, but was an emergent property/quality of social interaction? This would mean that morality is not something that exists in a single individual's mind, but that is held among minds - that, although not objective, morality is inter-subjective. This would place moral evaluations beyond just the mind of any one individual, although that individual might take part in negotiations about such evaluations. No one of us would be the judge of all the earth.

"Everything is Permitted!"

This would provide us an answer to the old fanatics' bugbear, "Without God, where do you get your morals from? Without God, everything is permitted!" It seems to me whenever I hear this claim by the religious, that the obvious question comes to mind, "Permitted by whom?" The obvious answer is, everyone else, and me (as a participant in the social order/context in which I live). Where do I get my morals? From the people around me and social context in which I live. The source of my morality is that social context. And, surprise, surprise, it doesn't permit everything.

This is one redefinition of morality, such that we can coherently speak of morality without making reference to some absolute authority and without making claims to any "fact status" about values/morals. It is one version of the next step away from absolutism, leaving it, and it's flipside nihilism, in the dust. It is also a conception of morality that allows for flexibility, adaptivity, and change as we negotiate.

I put it to you that this is a more coherent, even more moral, version of morality precisely because it places morality squarely within a human context - of humans, by humans, and for humans. For example, we won't have absolutist reasons to slaughter one another, or bind our children as sacrifices to God.

Beyond Absolutism

There are even more astonishing possibilities. What if we were able to conceive of morality, not as an imposition from on high, but as a constructive, participatory human endeavor? What if we could actually conceive of ourselves as something other than intrinsically evil monsters that need to be kept in check by internalized prohibitions. Could morality be something we could participate in, rather than as chains to keep the monster in check...?

The Point of the Journey...

God, the Perimeter of ignorance

Since my last blog entry was critical of Neil deGrasse Tyson, I'd like to present a new blog that sings praises about him. For (at least three) years now, I have said that of all the popular public scientific and skeptical figures available to host a Cosmos redux, Tyson is my preferred pick, and I stand by that, The man is engaging, well-spoken, learned, likeable - in a word, charismatic, much like Dr. Sagan was. This perhaps is why I found Tyson's "Think Big" brain-fart so disappointing.

The one thing that really struck me, and what garnered most of my appreciation of him, was Dr. Tyson's talk on intelligent design, from a historical perspective and with respect to the Dover Trial.

Here is a link to the important point of the talk:
Perimeter of Ignorance (Short)

Here's a link to the longer version for the completists:
The Perimeter of Ignorance (Full)

Intrinsic Inexplicability

Tyson's depiction of God as a "perimeter of ignorance," seems to me to be a powerful point. Now, Tyson's emphasis seems to be more about intrinsic inexplicability (what is often the "mystery" gaps the "God of the Gaps" skulks about in until swept out by the latest discoveries) than anything else, but even on just that point, Tyson's talk is interesting. Intrinsic inexplicability, at least in naturalistic terms, is really the festering heart and corrupt soul of intelligent design, a positions specifically intended to halt further inquiry and set up faith (chasing its own tail) as the ultimate authority in science.

Of course what I refer to as a "festering heart and corrupt soul," theists refer to as "mystery" to be "revered" with "awe," the loss of which they mourn when science reveals more and more of the universe to be, in Tim Minchin's words, "not magic." Every inch of reality no longer shrouded in intrinsically inexplicable mystery is an inch of God's dominion being trespassed upon. This kind of thinking is the stuff of which religious opposition to science has been built upon since the early roots of scientific inquiry. It is a good part of the horror of the story "Frankenstein" by Mary Shelley. Horror is, I suspect, a concept doomed to the trash heap of history. Perhaps a topic for another time...

Faith-Based Evidence

In the United States of the Bush(-league) regime, we saw an even nastier effort to depict faith as scientific evidence (so called "Faith-based evidence"), which is an inevitable sidekick to the cdesignproponentist (Intelligent Design) efforts. The inclusion of faith-based evidence as scientific evidence would, of course, undermine science as an empirical study altogether, since faith is quite anti-empirical in its emphasis. This was, of course, the desire of the religious right at the time.

Perimeter of Ignorance Redux

Of course, I want to take it a step further - from my philosophical skeptical perspective. This is not really just about God, as an ad hoc explanatory device when we assume we cannot and/or will not ever be able to explain something - and by explain I mean in a way that provides predictive power - but rather what God is a symbol of in the context of human understanding.

God is a substitute for knowledge and truth and an excuse to stop exploring. It acts as an explanation, albeit an abysmally useless one, and leaves us "satisfied" that no further exploration is necessary or desireable. God is a poor substitute for explanations for reasons I've gone into in another blogpost ("A Need to Know Basis") about the nature of explanations and scientific theories and the differences in predictive power offered by each (or lack thereof, in the case of "God's Will"). Indeed, it is a recurrent theme for me so far.

God is a symbol for truth, and it appears that God is a perimeter of ignorance in part because of this. After all if one thinks one has the truth, there is no further cause for inquiry, is there? I put it to you that truth itself is the perimeter of ignorance, of which God is only a symbol. A faith-based understanding of reality confuses the conceit of knowledge with actual knowledge and hence removes opportunity to acquire a more thorough, and empirically accurate understanding of reality.

No Truth?

If certain knowledge is unattainable, then is not a skeptical perspective doomed to failure?

Science has at its core skepticism, an understanding that we do not have certain knowledge, in other words that we do not have the definitive truth. We have explanatory devices (theories) that are better supported by evidence than others, perhaps overwhelmingly so, but at no time do we say that there is nothing more to explore or that we are now certain. A theory can be overturned, modified, or replaced, if it fails to agree with experimental results and empirical observations, or if a better one (more in line with experimental results and empirical observations) arises. Hence, inquiry is always an ongoing process. So, in effect, it is assumed (posited) that there is a truth (realism), but that we never know it with certainty, Now, does this mean that the entire enterprise is meaningless? After all, what is the point of seeking truth is we assume, a priori as it were (justified or otherwise), that we cannot ever reach certain truth? Well, it turns out that, like the NASA space program for example, there are benefits to be gained along the way. Whatever the goal or goals, the explorations themselves reap rewards, rewards like tripled lifespans, world-spanning communications networks, life quality improvements, etc., etc., etc...

What's really interesting about this, and as odd as it sounds, is that seeking truth using a scientific, error-correction methodology while assuming we never have truth reaps results and rewards undreamed of (indeed deliberately undreamed of) by pre-science religious investigations into vague, mystical (almost invariably analytical only) metaphysics. Having this tension works, perhaps because whatever else is at work, at least we continue our interrogations of the universe, whereas with God and other truth symbols, inquiry halts. It's not just the method of science that makes it work. It's the ongoing inquiry itself - and that is where the skepticism comes into play.

The road goes ever on and on. Perhaps the point of the journey is not to arrive...

God Concepts

I think in order to understand why I am critical of hard determinism, I will need to give a brief history of my thinking.

Teaser: Are we still defining free will in terms of acausality? Are we still defining morality in terms of objective truth?

God-Concepts

As a student of philosophy (waaay back then) and an atheist, I was intrigued with the kind of concept God was. After only a little bit of work I learned that, as an explanatory device, God was a failure. For many, the idea that it explained everything was persuasive, but I saw that it prohibited nothing and realized that as an explanatory device it provided us with a goose-egg in terms of predictive power. I referred to it as a God-concept (go figure!), and started looking for others...

Self-Interest

In analytic ethics, I came across the plethora of theories based on this idea of "self-interest." What was interesting about the idea of self-interest is that every possible choice could be characterized in terms of self-interest. It soon became plainly obvious that the reason for this was the way in which the concept was defined. It explained all possible behaviours, including self-contradictory ones, and prohibited none, and in so doing, negated any predictive power the idea had. I had found another God-Concept and this one was commonly accepted among contemporary scholars. Again, arguments from self-interest are ridiculously persuasive precisely because self-interest seems to explain everything.

In the meantime, altruism had been defined out of existence...

Determinism

Along came determinism. For me it was in the form of Skinnerian behaviouralism. It's central effort was an attempt to turn psychology into a science by dealing only with what could be "verified" (external behaviour) and (pretty much) ignoring everything else. A passing nod was given to internal states by suggesting that our feelings of free will and the like were us experiencing our behaviour. It also assumed a causal (or at least correlational chain) between antecedent events and consequent behaviours. Again a scientific way of looking at things. At first I played along with it, trying determinism on for size as it were. It quickly dawned on me that it could explain every behaviour as a consequent of antecedent causal events including self-contradictory ones. Very persuasive. The next obvious task was to try to find a behaviour example it does not explain. Still looking - and this is where determinism gets interesting: Where is the falsifiability? That's right. Another God-concept.

So, to be perfectly honest, I dismiss determinism as an explanatory device for exactly the same reason I dismiss God and self-interest as explanatory devices: they have no predictive power because they "explain everything and preclude nothing." Now, I'm not saying that I don't think determinism has something to offer us, however, to assume it is the truth is as much an error from a scientific perspective (not even considering a skeptical perspective) as it is to accept God as an explanatory device. I suspect it is the first step down a long path, but it is not, as far as I can tell the end point.

Rampant Speculation

Now, there can be any number of possible and different ideas about free will, not all of which need be supernatural in nature. The interesting thing, historically, is that religion sought to annex human volition (just as it sought to annex just about every other human quality and function) within its supernatural framework and most have come to accept this, including, I suspect, some folks critical of religion - perhaps to the point where they dismiss free will on the basis of its presumed supernatural association. Perhaps the reason we see free will as a supernatural breaking of a causal chain is because we rarely try to phrase it any other way, or perhaps more to the point, because determinism presents us with a dichotomous understanding of determined vs uncaused - a dichotomous relationship supported and promoted by religion seeking to present itself as the fundament of free will.

One such non-supernatural way of viewing free will might be as an emergent property of mind as a social construct. I am not saying this is the case, nor am I able at this point to defend it. All I am suggesting is that it may be possible to posit something functionally identical to (or very much like) free will in non-supernatural terms. Perhaps free will is something that naturally arises from our distinction between self and environment, or perhaps from some other aspect of our understanding of self. This is not as new-agey as it may sound. After all, if one conceives of oneself as being comprised of three warring selves in constant conflict, is it any surprise that one feels internally conflicted? If one perceives of oneself as being a being of sin, is it any surprise that one feels the need for forgiveness? You could build a business off of those...

The point really is that just because a particular idea (even something as seemingly irrefutable as determinism) suggests that something is true doesn't mean it is. Of all people, skeptics (scientific skeptics included) must understand this. We've seen through it with respect to the first God-concept....

It may be that we are wholly determined beings, but for the time being, I do not see sufficient cause to accept that we are without allowing for possible alternatives...

Definitions Bind Us; Definitions Can Free Us

There was a time when morality was defined entirely in terms of absolutist commandments imposed on us from some objective, independent of humanity, authority (namely: God). With such a definition, removing God from the equation meant decimating morality. Then we started defining morality as a social construct and matters started falling into place again. We labour under a definition of free will that entails acausality. With such a definition, free will is impossible. What if we started defining free will as a social construct...?

Perhaps in a very real sense, we are what we define ourselves as being.

Into the Next

I rather like humanity, warts and all. I think it has tremendous potential which we are only just now beginning to tap. Some very, very bad people with some hideous ideas infected our thinking and cast us into stagnation, horror, and superstition for a very long time. It was a self-indulgent, self-congratulatory kind of coma, and defined everything we do and think in terms of it, so it's going to take some effort to break the spell of it.

If one considers the history of humanity as a single lifespan, I see us as being in our adolescent stage, just when we are starting to realize that it's time to move out and live our own lives. It is a difficult time, filled with strife and indecision, and the unpleasant reality that we can no longer rely on mommy or daddy to set our life rules for us and that we must accept responsibility for our own lifestyle, diet, health and general balance of living. We must work and no one is going to do it for us - we have to do it ourselves. Leaving behind children's fables is not easy, but it must be done. It's just part of the growing-up process.

There comes a point in everyone's life when (metaphorically) they hold the knife in their hands and realize, fully realize, that they can put an end to their existence. At that terrible moment of ultimate self-efficacy, a decision must be made, for the first time. At that point, for the first time, we must create our own reasons not to use the knife. It is a pivotal moment and it is difficult. We have thought like children for so long and adulthood is uncharted territory.

My generation was the first (arguably the second) to hold the knife in its hands. It may seem trite to say it now, but I grew up under the threat of "the bomb" and the total annihilation of all of humanity. It's been a turbulent time and there are those who rail against leaving the comfort of daddy's basement, but we are dragging ourselves, kicking and screaming, into adulthood. It's not over yet, to be sure, but there are promising signs.

The collapse of the Soviet Union was remarkable precisely in that it did collapse rather than go out in a "blaze of glory," a not unfathomable possibility. Two nuclear-capable nations who despise each other with near absolute passion (India and Pakistan) mutually backed off from the brink. Despite the fact that we have been taught for thousands of years that we are evil and like being evil, we have formed (to varying degrees) some generally compassionate social orders. We see mass cooperation on a grand scale, but are often blinded by the exceptions, reveling in them, despairing in the isolated incidences, and wielding them to confirm our hatred of ourselves. No surprise there - we've been taught to do that. We have developed tools (both physical and idea-tools) that allow us to lengthen life-spans and improve quality of life dramatically. We have leisure time the likes of which was unknown before us, which we can use pretty much however we want. We have time to think about being better than we have been.

I keep a copy of the Cassini photograph of Earth seen through Saturn's rings as a background because, to me, it is a symbol of what we can accomplish - the sheer, astonishing power of human potential and efficacy, when we choose to not be hobbled by small, twisted minds, jealously guarding their empty little metaphysical empires. Such modern miracles are commonplace now and we've become complacent - even blase. There are new ones of ever greater magnitude every other day it, seems. We don't need to wait lifespans for them anymore. We need only wait a few hours, or so it seems. We are never satisfied and are harder to impress all the time.

This has been an exciting, vibrant time and of all of human history, this is the time I would choose to live in. There are bumps in the road, to be sure, and we don't know where it leads, but we are hesitantly taking steps to the future. I say "hesitant" in terms of individual lifespans, but in the larger scale, the change over the past few hundred years has been almost fantastic and is accelerating at an astonishing rate.

Isn't it interesting that, to the best of our knowledge, the one species that is able to contemplate it's own way of being, uses that contemplation with such ferocious deliberation to vilify itself, systematically and methodically. In a very important sense, we are what we think we are because our concept of self is subject to negotiation. We decide what kind of people we are. We've made some very bad decisions in the past, but we've made some good ones too and the good ones are slowly, inexorably starting to assume, despite vigorous protestations, a leading role in our thinking.

I don't hate humanity, and I'm not about to let agenda-ridden dogmas convince me that I should. It's not about faith - faith is a throwback to a darker, bleaker, emotionally and intellectually hobbled time. It's about throwing stagnation-faith away, recognizing potentials, and getting on with the business of living.

It's not about knowing; it's about learning.
It's not about mastering; it's about surpassing.
It's not about being right; it's about being adaptable.
It's not about prophesy; it's about efficacy.
It's not about fathers; it's about children.
Its not about the good old days; it's about a better tomorrow.
It's not about surrender; it's about striving.
Its not about stagnation; it's about potential.
It's not about despair; it's about vision.
It's not about the past; it's about the future.

The best teachers want their students to leave them in the dust...

A Need to Know Basis

So, let us conduct a thought experiment. :)

Help!

Let us posit that I am hovering, arms flailing, in a state of abject panic, 45 degrees off the edge of a cliff. Forget gravity (for the sake of this experiment, gravity doesn't exist). Instead, let's look at god's will as the sole determining causal factor in whether I:

(1) recover my balance, or
(2) plummet to a screaming, squishy death.

Now, if I recover my balance, is that consistent with god's will?
Now if I fall to a screaming, squishy death, is that consistent with god's will?

Well, if god is omnipotent, as is often claimed, then both are consistent with god's will. Indeed both at the same time are consistent with god's will, and neither at the same time. God could also whisk me up into the skies, never to see the ground again. If God so desired I could hang, terrified, there forever. So, god's will "explains" every possible (and even all logically impossible) outcomes.

This tells us something very important about god's will as an explanation. It actually permits all possibilities and, therefore, prohibits none. Clearly there is no possible result that is inconsistent with an omnipotent god. And that, folks, is precisely why god's will offers us zero predictive power. We cannot say, of any result, that it contradicts god's will.

That's quite a versatile "explanation" indeed. So versatile, in fact, that it doesn't give us anything to use to choose between different outcomes. Some folks find this feature to be compelling. Who doesn't like unlimited possibilities, after all?

So, using god's will, let us ask again, will I recover my balance or will I fall to a screaming, squishy death? It seems the only answer is, "We don't know." Well, as someone teetering in abject terror, I am intensely interested in any predicted results here. I am very much interested in whether I recover or fall to a (you know the rest)...

Theory vs Explanation

A scientific theory is specifically designed to offer predictive power. That means science's "explanations" require some results and prohibit others. The prohibiting other outcomes is referred to as "falsifiability." Falsifiability is the naming of outcomes under which a theory would be proven incorrect. If a scientific theory prohibits an outcome and it happens, then it is time to revise or abandon the theory.

This is the main difference between a scientific theory and any old explanation. Theories tell us something that we can test for. Whether you want to be able to test your explanation is another issue. Many people like composing their "explanations" so that there is no way to test them. This keeps them immune from inquiry. There are even follower-types who will gaze in jaw-dropped amazement at how clever such an explanation is. Such people can often be convinced to give you money, apparently.

"God's will" does not prohibit outcomes. How are you going to search for truth, how are you going to investigate anything, if your method of inquiry tells you nothing at all - offers you zero predictive power?

However, the matter is even worse than this, using "God's Will" as an explanatory device. Since there is no possible verification or refutation of the explanatory device, the matter is forever shrouded in impenetrable mystery. As an explanatory device, "God's Will" stops us dead in our tracks. With "God's Will" we get precisely nowhere and have no potential to get anywhere...

Irrefutable

There are two ways an "explanation" may be irrefutable:
(1) it may be true, or
(2) it may be designed such that it can never be refuted.

To say that something is irrefutable is not necessarily to say that it is true. The latter is only interesting as an example of what not to do. It is not profound, nor wise, nor deep, nor, and this is most important, true. So, when you are confronted by an irrefutable explanation, ask yourself if it is actually true or if it is irrefutable because there is no way of telling if it is true or not.