Your god and kid cancer

Suppose you were not just the average good person that is supposed to help your fellow man in distress, but you were best of creed.

Suppose you were not restricted by time, budget, energy or resources.

Suppose you would know how to cure.

Suppose you are really committed to love.

Suppose you really, really care.

Suppose you could cure kid cancer by a sheer act of will.

Then would something hold you back to cure kid cancer immediately, permanently, thoroughly?

Whose moral would you trust, the moral of the benevolent omnipotent bystander that claims the creation of kid cancer, or the imperfect human medical scientist that puts his trust on reason to help the kid?

I put a spell on you, ’cause you’re mine…

Some words like ‘absolute’ can put a serious spell on people. Just the word itself, the promise it holds, seems enough to convince some of the truth of their suggestive meaning. In general, absolute truth is that what is always valid, regardless of context. The absolute in the term connotes one or more of the folowing: ‘ultimate’, ‘complete’, ‘unvarying’, ‘permanent’, ‘essential’ or ‘valid in all possible worlds’.

The very existence of logical absolutes is a concept itself, not a fact about and verified in reality. To grant existence to logical absolutes the concept of existence has to be extended to the conceptual realm. But this does not mean that these logical absolutes necessarily have meaning in the real world. The point is that the applicability of logical absolutes to the real world is suggested by the label but not a deductive logical necessity. To say for instance that the world is governed by mathematical laws is in essence a form of inductive reasoning not a deduction from logic. The first perfect circle has yet to be found in our world. In fact Hume identified the non-provability of the applicability of mathematical laws to the real world as the Problem Of Induction. The applicability of these laws to our universe cannot be deduced from logical absolutes. So how can we even verify them in an absolute way? The answer: we can’t. The reason: we make up logical absolutes but have no clue about the nature of their link with the real world. Bottomline, all logical statements depend on the logical framework within which they are used.

Then why does our universe looks so logical, one might ask. All seems to fit together, somehow. The answer, in short, is that the choice of logical framework usually is instigated by the practical coherence between the logic and the phenomena in reality we try to understand. Usually we choose the logic that best fits the problem, so all kinds of internally complete yet impracticle logical frameworks get weeded out in our thinking process about the grand pattern we try to see in nature. The beauty of thought is however that it is not necessarily restricted to logical frameworks that fit to what we think is nature. We can and have thought up logical frameworks that don’t (yet) make sense in nature. Moreover in mathematics there is a certain tradition of thinking up seemingly impractical logical frameworks, while in physics there seems to be a tradition of making practicle use of seemingly impractical mathematical frameworks. This indeed has shown to be a very potent force in the scientific endeavour. On the other hand nature itself keeps surprising us with patterns that don’t fit ‘normal’ logic. In reaction to that we (some of us at least) are not afraid to …yep, devise new logical frameworks that do fit. An example is quantum logic. As of yet however it is not clear how to reconcile the different regimes of logic that are needed to describe all of nature. Most strikingly, the logic of the world of the very small has not yet been reconciled with the world of the very large. These worlds seem to use different logical frameworks. This should not be an unfamiliar concept to ancient philosophers though. In the bible clear traces of different regimes governing ‘above’ and ‘down here’ can be identified. We have narrowed the gap thanks to Newton, Einstein and countless others, but we haven’t come full swing. One could say that the attempts to tie together all the known facts about the universe into a single unified theory is a search for absolute truth about our reality. The latest news is that we haven’t struck gold yet, so declaring absolute truths seems rather premature.

But that sounds like postmodernistic relativistic bullshit, I hear you say. Well, you are entitled to think so, but keep in mind that there is no conclusion here that reconciliation of the logical frameworks with which we describe nature is impossible. Now that would be a very premature conclusion indeed. All scientific effort essentially is part of this strive for reconciliation. That there is no reconciliation yet does not mean that reconciliation cannot be achieved. This only shows that we should be very sparse with labels like ‘absolute’, ‘complete’, ‘ultimate’ and ‘truth’. These are all concepts of the human mind in need for verification/falsification. They may hold to a great extent in the conceptual realms of mathematics, logic and thought but they hold no intrinsic guarantee for their applicability to that what is.

Faith and slavery of the mind

The theistic position on moral really is a very unsatisfying and in fact a very disturbing one. The essence of it being that man can’t provide meaning for himself and is locked in a master slave depenency. He has to rely on an external agent to give him meaning and can’t decide for himself what is right and what is wrong. What’s more, reason and free will become useless placebos. No, in moral theology the moral rules consist of a god given set of statements not to be questioned. Severe punishment awaits him who dares to question. That basically is a master slave dependance. Is it healthy to engage in such a dependance? For deciding on that one could search for an indenpendant judgement.

But alas, in the theistic view the divine master controlls all and is carefully placed beyond the realm of possible investigation. There’s no second opinion. There’s no possibility to independently check the allegedly god given moral. If that were possible, we wouldn’t need an external agent to dictate us moral. In other words, the theist is living a parasitic zombielike state. Theists tell each other this is meaningful. Of course this is exactly the bogus you’d expect to find to emerge in man-made cultures in need for a system of some form of mind control. And, what concidence, virtually every tribe on the planet has claimed his own master god that’s in control of things like the beginning of the world. In fact, much of the global history so far has been dominated by cultural clashes of these religious claims. To me, this really is sickening and unhealthy practice that has nothing to do with leading meaningful lives.

This is why a human based moral is so much more satisfying than an externally dictated one. In a human based moral love of your fellow human being for instance, isn’t dictated by an external agent but is a decision made by man himself. The real thing, not the surrogate in my opinion. The same dogmatic shield that prohibits independant investigation of allegedly divine moral statements also prohibits an independant comparison of religions from within religion. This is the nature of institutionalized religion. A strong indication for a person’s religious beliefs usually is the culture in which that person is born. Religion is a culture thing. Yet, every religion strongly denies the human origin of its moral values.

Also the theistic stance is very unsatisfying from an intellectual perspective. Because it’s premisses are postulated and not open to investigation, they are dogmas. Although any sane human being should shrudder on the thought of what dogmas have brought about in this world, in the theistic tradition dogmas are considered to be OK. In fact the invention of many religious dogmas can be traced historically. The ideas of redemption by the cross and the holy trinity date from considerably after christ’s death. These were issues decided on by men already in an institutionalized religious environment long after the events they interpretated allegedly took place. Opponents of clerical dogma were also present at the time but their fate in many cases was sealed not long after these dogma gatherings. In the prelude of such gatherings the expected outcome was not clear from intrinsic facts about the events. The only good indication for the expected outcome was the political strength of defenders and opponents. This is strong indication that there is no real divine basis to these dogmas but these are man made statements.

Every claim on the validity of moral predicates should be substantiated by it’s proponents on the basis of reasoning alone. To claim this validity on divine origin alone is an unworthy subjugation to slavery of the mind.

The Benchmarking Of Moral

For centuries philosophers have tried to answer the question of the
nature of morality. Conclusive answers are hard to get by. Still many theist claim a divine origin of moral.

The problem with a god given moral

Moral under the guidance of a god is a logically problematic idea. There’s the problem of dicriminating between evil and good divine intentions. When people are
subjected to a god given moral, they’re not able to validate this
god-moral because people can only benchmark it with there own moral,
which is god given. So the answer would be begging the question. In other words, we have no independent means to answer the
question whether the god provided moral is a good moral or an evil one. Think of the implications of this. This could mean
that when we’re dealing with an evil god who just presents his moral as
a good moral, we won’t know the difference. You might object that it’s
plain to see that god’s moral as presented in the bible is a good
moral, but that only is a valid argument when it’s an entirely human
judgement. In that case we ‘ve reached the conclusion that man can
reach moral conclusions on his own which in turn declines the need for
an absolute god-given moral altogether.

Still, people do assert strong moral convictions. Some facts on morality.

- Morality in general shows both geographic and cultural depedencies.
-
Morality is dynamic in nature. History clearly shows that over time
moral convictions can change significantly even within the same culture
and geographic location.
- Some moral concepts seem to be shared by nearly all humans over all time.
-
Some animals seem to live by some moral rules. Moreover, behaviour of
some animals seems to parallel some basic moral concepts of man. For
instance, primates will punish certain deeds of a group member by
exclusion of the member from the group.

A conclusion from these facts is that moral isn’t absolute and
static in essence at all, it’s (partly at least) dynamic and relative. Furthermore a
biological and/or environmental factor seems present. Moral convictions seem to stem from
a mix of personal, cultural and intrinsic (biological) goals. So,
morality is based on goals we aim at of which some are shared by many
(some may be ‘hard-wired’ in our phenotype), others are
very personal indeed. Then the question is not if moral is relative, but just how relative. In other words, is there a common human basis of moral predicates, constant over all time and all cultures?

On evolution and human behaviour

In a discussion I had with a theist, my opponent put forward that proponents of evolution who claim that religion is a byproduct of evolution and at the same time attack religion as a corrosive and destructive phenomenon, shoot themselves in the foot. For how can theism have any evolutionary advantages if it is destructive to society?

To answer this question first let’s have a look at some other human behaviour that we probably agree on to be very corrosive indeed: human warfare. This clearly is a form of behaviour most individuals would disprove of. Yet war is written all over human history. It can be traced back to early history and tribal societies and even further. How then is it possible to have warfare?

The answer is that from an evolutionary perspective warfare – although it certainly can have strong negative impact on individuals – in some very basic ways sustains the propagation of the human genome, for instance by giving acces, by brute force that is, to food sources in times of scarcity. An evolutionary – or in a broader sense any naturalistic explanation – in no way entails a moral condonement.

So there’s is a big difference between the evolutionary perspective and the perspective from the well being of individuals. In your question you seemingly unnoticebly (and not deliberately, i’m sure) change your perspective from the human genome to individual needs.

There is no contradiction in the fact that religion may have evolved as a human trait while at the same time being very destructive on the level of the individual. This very much is part of a broader reason versus nature argument often put forward. But not all that nature brings us is good for individuals. As organized individuals we should take a stand against any destructive behaviour that nature has bestowed upon us. Any religion that claims room for the free will of man contradicts itself when it states that an evolutionary origin of behaviour indicates advantages for individuals and extends that even to moral justification. In short, like some traits of human behaviour malaria has evolved, I suggest we act as responsible grown ups equipped with free will and reason and fight corrosive social elements where we encounter it.

Thor’s Rehab

Some more reflections on the Dennett versus D’Souza debate (see earlier posting). Science has come up with the Big Bang model and now theists see in it evidence for a first cause argument. They argue that from the fact that the universe has a beginning it follows that the universe has a special kind of cause: an intelligent first cause (preferably the christian kind in D’Souza’s case). How should the philosophical and/or scientific community rebut? How should Dennett have rebutted? In my opinion there really is a host of arguments that is applicable.

The more or less implicit claims made by D’Souza are the following:

1) The Big Bang shows that the universe had a beginning.
2) ‘Outside’ the universe, there is a realm of existence (let’s call it the realm of god) from which the universe is caused
3) The beginning of the universe is the beginning of everything with exception of the realm of god.
4) Although time is an intrinsic aspect of the universe alone there is a causal connection between the god realm and the universe (causal bridge).
5) The realm of god and god himself is static and uncaused.
6) The universe was caused intentionally and deliberately
7) God intended to create the universe as it is.

Some remarks on these assertions:

(2) The Big Bang model in its present form by no means requires a realm of existence outside the universe that is causally connected with the universe. Yet this causal connection and this outside realm both are necessary in D’Souza’s argument.

(3) Why not allow (from the ‘outside realm’) for the unintentional causation of many universes (rebutting 3), or for unintentional triggers in which the same universe is created and destroyed over and over? Indeed, in buddhism there is no divine cause required to cause the universe. Then shouldn’t D’Souza make perfectly clear on what grounds he can falsify buddhistic cosmogony over the christian one? Shouldn’t D’Souza make perfectly clear from what solid fact it follows that we are in need for an intentional and deliberate causator? The blunt fact is that no religion can infer an intentional causation of the universe from the Big Bang.

(4) How can ’cause’ have meaning without time to line up cause and consequence?

(5) This assertion allows for uncaused existence. Why not allow this for the universe itself? And why should this causator itself be uncaused. From what facts of the Big Bang model should this plug-in-the-bath-tub argument follow?

(6) If we allow for a causal connection between a realm of existence ‘outside’ the universe and the universe itself, then why not allow for an unintentional causation of our universe from that realm? There is no need for assertion intentional and deliberate causation. This is an unneccessary addition that further complicates the model. When Ockham’s Razor is applied to it, it is clear that should be left out. Furthermore couldn’t god have created a more clearly purposeful universe. There’s a lot of waste about. His rolemodel as a good housekeeper in the universe lies in shambles. A holodek for mankind would have been enough.

(7) Wouldn’t D’Souza shout the same argument in any universe that brought him about? And wouldn’t he be silent in any other universe? Is the carbon base of life necessary for the existence of intelligent agents such as us? How does he know?

All in all D’Souza is in great need of filling the gaps. I see a strong analogy between Thor’s thunder and god’s Big Bang. Why doesn’t D’Souza demand the full rehabilitation of Thor now we know he didn’t cause thunder but a much bigger bang?

Pope has no hope in mankind

Pope Benedict released a new papal encyclical on friday November 30. One of the statements seems to adress the present revival of atheistic manifestations. It reads: “Let us put it very simply: man needs God, otherwise he remains without hope.”

This is a sad thing, for it follows from this that according to pope Benedict man can not find hope in man himself. Only through the christian god man can have moral guidance, only through this god we can come to goodness. The world is a lost place he seems to say. Why bother about your brother when there is no hope there?

Shouldn’t someone point out the bankruptcy of this argument.

The Dennett vs D’Souza debate

On November 30, Daniel Dennett (renowned philosopher) and Dinesh D’Souza (conservative christian author) debated. The debate took place at Tufts University . The premisse of the debate they argued over was as follows: “God is a manmade invention.” Daniel Dennett argued the affirmative, and Dinesh D’Souza the negative. The video registration of the debate can be found here:

Dennett versus D’Souza, Tufts University, November 30, 2007

Some perceptions on the debate:

Apparent is not only the wide gap between the conclusions both debaters arrive at but also the use and/or lack of debating techniques. Dennett lacks the verve with which D’Souza operates. Dennett fumbles around with the microphone, takes a lot of time to state his arguments and sometimes isn’t very on target in rebutting the assertions of D’Souza which are stated in a rather agressive tone. D’Souza on the other hand certainly has a steady flow of arguments and is a rapid speaker. As mentioned, his tone is rather aggressive and he most of the time shoutes in the microphone.

To the eye therefore D’Souza won the debate. On closer examination of the presented arguments his victory isn’t clear at all. For instance D’Souza states that scientific evidence for the Big Bang supports the idea of a first cause and therefore for a intelligent creator. In my opinion this isn’t rebutted sufficiently by Dennett. Boeddhism allegedly also is compatible with the Big Bang but doesn’t invoke a divine creator.