Technical Problems

Young Freethought is currently having some technical problems. The more observant of you may have noticed a lack of activity over the last week. Things are due to get sorted by next week, when all will be back to normal. Please continue to send submissions to youngfreethought@googlemail.com

The Right to Offend versus the Christian Privilege

In this examination, Eric Stockhausen covers the difficulties in the spectrum of first amendment rights in regard to religion; from offensive but legal, to illegal, and presents his opinion on some recent news.

Lately there has been a lot of news where the freedom to express ones religious views has been at the forefront. With the growing importance of such issues, I think it would be prudent to review some cases which have gotten onto atheist websites.

Exhibit A: Settlement clears way for Kerrville Cross

In my home state, Texas, a non-profit organization called The Coming King Foundation is putting up a 77 foot huge metal cross near neighbourhoods and access to Interstate 10. Not only would this be near residents but everyone would have to see it, on those grounds residents litigated against the foundation. This cross offends residents because A) Giant crosses remind people of lynching and other terrible connotations B) Crosses tend to give the message that God owns this land (Columbus-esque). C) Not everyone is Christian and the community does not want to give outsiders the wrong idea. D) A giant metal cross is just bad taste! I believe this Christian organization has the right to free speech, this clearly being an example of symbolic speech. These Christians have the right to offend people, but there is the clear problem of visual pollution (many people have to see it). So if atheists have the right to put up billboards that offend Christians, should Christians have the right to offend atheists? On a case to case basis it is really hard because from the perspective of a Christian who gets offended at the smallest reference to atheism on a public street corner, it can get fuzzy about whether or not the majority have the right to censor someone based on offence. I personally think that the law gives precedent to protect the foundation’s free speech no matter how much I disagree with their message. If there was a good way of deciding what constituted as visual pollution (aside from obscenities), I would have a different opinion on the legality of the foundation’s cross.

Exhibit B: Federal judge rules teacher can display patriotic banners mentioning 'God'

This time in California, a judge ruled that is was unconstitutional for a school to censor a teacher who had banners with Christian nationalistic messages. (See here)

One should really read the opinion the Judge gave. It really goes into detail of why the judge would protect such banners. These are obviously offensive to my atheistic tastes and I disagree with the mixing of God and country. The teacher is being unprofessional by putting his religio-political beliefs on display. The biggest problem is that they are all quotes of things that already have national protection. The judge referenced the Michael Newdow case where the Supreme Court decided that the Pledge of Allegiance recognizes the importance of God in the history of the United States. Though I disagree with both the Supreme Court’s ruling and belief on the importance of God, I can hardly blame the Judge. I suggest reading the Judge’s opinion and forming your own.

Now the important problem with this case is ‘Christian Privilege’. If the teacher had something like “Are you moral without God? Millions are!” or the like from the Freedom From Religion Foundation, it would have probably been censored because atheistic speech is very limited. This is an unacceptable double standard. I want atheist teachers to have equal protection under the law. If that means personal, political and religious views are prohibited for public school teachers because it is an abuse of power given to them by the government in order to teach kids, so be it. If the sign had said “In Jesus We Trust”, I would think it would be censored too because it is not politically correct enough for the classroom since it implies we believe in Jesus. People realize the importance of political correctness a little bit better when something is restated in a way that makes them understand the atmosphere in which it is presented. Implying Americans believe in Jesus excludes the Jewish Americans and implying Americans believes in God makes Atheist Americans a second class. I’ve gone through some commonly used rhetoric, make your own decision on the case.

Until the wall between church and state is repaired, we will just have to deal with things like Prop 4 on the GOP ballot in Texas (scroll to the bottom).

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Young Freethought's editors.

An Evening With The Archbishop

Have you heard the one about the theoretical physicist and the archbishop?

Last night saw an evenings conversation between theoretical physicist and Faraday Prize recipient Jim Al-Khalili (a man who sparked my own fascination in physics with ATOM – an excellent 3 part documentary, the first part of the first episode can be found here) and Dr. Rowan Williams, academic and the current Archbishop of Canterbury. As head of the Anglican Church, you’d expect the Archbishop to perhaps provide an insightful contribution to any debate pitting religion against science. In this respect, you’d be disappointed. You would find an approachable and intelligent human being though; and most importantly, one with a sense of humour. The Archbishop is a shining example of the kind of Christianity, and religion more generally, that even the most militant atheist would find hard to pick a bone with over a great range of issues. The sinister nature of a figure like Ratzinger is, thankfully, absent.

The ‘nicety’ of the conversation (an interview in essence) was added to by Al-Khalili’s reluctance to push the Archbishop when he slipped into poetic language to try and answer difficult questions. It was apparent from Al-Khalili’s manner, he was uncomfortable with many answers given in response to questions of miracles, divine intervention etc. When asked to comment on the rise of creationism, the Archbishop rightly disregarded it as nonsense. But his account of the supernatural, which religion demands a certain degree of belief in, was equally nonsensical.

A God, postulated the Archbishop, who is constantly “anxiously fiddling” with His creation, suggests He did a botch job in the first place. A clearly logical and fairly uncontroversial statement. But Dr. Williams also argues for a God that’s “bubbling” under creation, occasionally bursting through and causing miraculous events. “That’s not the same thing as tinkering with the works?” asked Al-Khalili. Of course not, replied the Archbishop. Once this logical void had been brushed over, the Archbishop continued with his ‘bubbly-god model’. In an interview with Richard Dawkins (whose name came up often), the Archbishop offered a similar argument which Dawkins was less reluctant to voice his concerns about (to view this, watch this video from about 29 mins 50 secs until 32 mins 59 secs) .

As well as this questionable lyricism, the Archbishop uttered comments on morality which, under examination, reveal a deep suspicion of humanity. Al-Khalili put it to the archbishop that his “moral compass” was perfectly in tune without the need of God or gods. Williams questioned how that moral compass could be set in the first place. Why is it even there at all? Now, although Williams denied that he was advocating a 'God of the gaps' earlier on, he seemed to be doing just that. We don’t know why we have “moral compass” so God must have done it. No, in fact. There are many fascinating evolutionary explanations of altruism that don’t rely on commandments or grand tinkerers. The belief that humanity wouldn’t know right from wrong without a God is theistic fatalism. Quoting Etty Hillesum writing of the Nazi Occupation of Amsterdam, the Archbishop said “somebody’s got to take responsibility for God”. This statement is revealing in more ways than the Archbishop considered.

There was a great deal more content to this talk I haven’t offered my thoughts on, and it’s all worth a listen. I’ll post a link to the event as soon as I find one.

Science: What More Do You Want?

John Kubinski, inspired by Dawkins and Sagan, reminds us that science has more properties than being a tool in the debate against religion; science embodies that remarkable process of human inquiry which is beautiful in its own right.

The beauty of science is that it has the ability to shatter common sense. Time and time again, the awe inspiring nature of the truth is revealed to us by scientific inquiry. Unceasingly, science pulls the warm blanket of familiarity from under us, and exposes our minds to the once inconceivable wild bewildering truth. The truth itself is not the only thing that is beautiful, though it often can be rather elegant and stunning. But the fact that we comprehend the truth, the fact that we can successfully pursue the truth, the fact that the only place the truth is ever actually manifested is within our own minds - these are the beautifying aspects of the human relationship with science.

Science is a wholly human endeavour, we know not of any other life that attempts to discern the true nature of reality. And we, as science has shown, are a part of the very symphony we study. Matter is investigating matter. Through science we learn not only about how the world around us operates, but we learn about the fabric of our essence on every single level, from the atomic to the genetic to the cognitive. Could there be a more incredible aspect of the world than the fact that evolved primates such as us can not only ponder, but understand the many great puzzles of the universe? (If there is a more incredible fact, be assured that science will produce it.) And to whom do we owe our advances in understanding? Ourselves. We own the truths that we have unveiled; through nothing but the sheer power of human reason we have vastly improved our comprehension of the cosmos. Could those early Homo Sapiens roaming the Savannah ever have dreamed of calculus, quantum mechanics, relativity, game theory, philosophy, evolution? Our ancestors had no hope of ever comprehending the rationale behind their existence; that is a privilege that (if it ever came at all) could only belong to their progeny. And it didn’t have to be that way. We are unbelievably special in that regard. If you did the calculations, the percentage of matter in the universe that could ponder its origins (or anything at all!) would be infinitesimally small. It is just absolutely astonishing that rationality and sentience manifest in a mammalian brain made of ordinary matter and energy, just like anything else. The difference between you and the objects around you are configuration; the atoms that comprise you are arranged one way, theirs in another. A truth like that is so intensely fascinating and intellectually provocative, it is just amazing that we know of it. Such truths melt our intuition into a shapeless mess of incomprehensibility.

Science makes that sense of flawed understanding and unfamiliarity possible, it expands our cognitive landscape by pushing back ever further against our convenient yet mistaken perceptions of reality. The intellectual process by which one gains greater insight into the universe, and sees reality in a new light, is one of the finest experiences that higher order consciousness privileges us to. But of course, the truths were always true. Reality does not change, just our malformed perceptions do. Much of the wonder lies in this aspect of science; the perseverance of human reason over our innate deficiencies. Science is an exciting foray into the yet-to-be-known, with our collective capacity to reason and the hard-won truths uncovered by those before us as the only guiding lights.

Life has always evolved, entropy has always increased, gravity has always weakened proportionally to the square of the distance of the source, the atoms of solids have always been comprised mostly of empty space, and mass-energy equivalence has always held - but only in the past thousand years have these truths ever been grasped. We breathe life into the equations as much as they breathe life into us, for it is us, and as far as we know only us, who have been able to appreciate the elegant truths that make reality the way it is. Empowering, liberating, inspiring, confusing, humbling - these are just some of the things that science does to life which makes existence fuller, broader, richer, and dare I say, more meaningful.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and don't necessarily reflect the views of Young Freethought's editors.

The Inner Self Misconception

In this philosophical post, Eric Stockhausen argues that the concept of a soul or inner self is misleading to the most comprehensible understanding of experience and offers an alternative. Enjoy!

Some believe the self is the personality part of brain. Some believe the self is an experiencer who exists within the brain, watching what the brain shows it. Some believe the self is just conscious thought and everything else is more or less no one self. More believe in a soul which incorporates some of ones personality, experience, and thought.

Each one of these beliefs sets up a compartment with walls. These walls represent a barrier between phenomena outside the self and inside the self. When sense data comes into this compartment whether it is the soul or some metaphorical place in the brain, it can be experienced. The self exists in this compartment and is completely unaware of anything outside. From this conception of the inner self, Descartes made his famous Demon argument which suggested that all that information entering ones compartment could be a carefully crafted narrative created by a Demon with unlimited power.

This inner self argument seems tempting in its current form for many people; however it presents many problems of its own. First it implies that there is this clear and distinct “I”; however, under the current argument that would imply that the “I” inside the compartment would be independent from his compartment and also experiencing the experiences as they are being put inside the room. This creates an ontological problem because it implies that there is an infinite set of inner selves. (For more on this subject read Consciousness Explained by Daniel Dennett.)

Now that the inner self independent of the brain is ruled out, it is important to present an alternative. The “I” people experience is part of their mental actions. During sleep, there is a phase when this “I” turns off and people are no longer experiencing self-consciousness. These experiences are part of ones mental processes and are not delivered to any inner agency that is independent of the whole. Any part of the mental functions can be tampered with in order to produce a different experience. Humans have not evolved to look at their brains and notice that is where the thoughts are occurring. It would be best to imagine an experiment where one with their very own hands could use an electrode to activate certain parts of the brain and notice its cause and effect within their experience. Once one overcomes the instinctive misconception that thoughts hover over matter (and physical processes) as if matter could not logically be them, one will understand the more comprehensive theory of consciousness.

If one is wondering how a physical process produces a thought, there is an explanation. The way matter produces a living thing is by being self-organizing and self-reproducing. The processes that constitute thought are the same way. The matter is organized in such a way that once the process begins, the right reactions occur for the thinking to work continuously.

The views expressed in this post are those of the author and don't necessarily reflect the views of Young Freethought's editors.

Get Writing!

If you missed Marcus Du Sautoy’s Faraday lecture (it’s well worth a watch) you can find it here, complete with slides from the presentation. Entitled ‘The Secret Mathematicians’, Du Sautoy gave a ‘portrait of the artist as a mathematician’. For those who believe the boundaries between the arts and sciences are more blurry than it may seem, this lecture was a great affirmation. Steering clear of the clichéd examples of mathematical artists (I’m thinking of Bach in particular), Du Sautoy talked of intriguing and stimulating artists inspired by mathematics, most of whom, I’m ashamed to admit, I had no prior knowledge of.

In domestic news, this week has been lacking in content, largely because submissions, I’m afraid to say, haven’t been gracing my inbox and I’m not a bloging machine! The hits we’re getting don’t suggest any let up in interest or new readers, so if you’ve been toying over sending something in, don’t hesitate. E-mail it straight to youngfreethought@googlemail.com.

The Monstrosity Of Christ - Slavoj Zizek

Slavoj Zizek is a philosopher for the 21st century. His pace is terrifyingly polymathic and just keeping up with the intricacies of his speaking style is an intellectual assault course. Described by his biographer as doing philosophy with such recklessness as to risk making it interesting (a rather pessimistic and unjustified jab at ‘analytic’ philosophy) Zizek is a controversial, card-carrying comrade, but to run away screaming ‘COMMUNIST!’ would be to commit to the modern fallacy of pigeon-holing and categorizing. Zizek is too weird for that.

What interests me about his thought in the context of this blog is his critique of Christianity. An atheist, Zizek would no doubt shun the ‘new atheist’ movement and perhaps view this blog's posts on the future of freethought with bizarre fascination - as he might view the blog in its entirety. Nonetheless, this ‘continental’ thinker has much to contribute to any atheism/theism debate.

Zizek focuses on the Christian command to ‘love thy neighbour’. Firstly, and less interestingly, he asserts along with many other thinkers (I can also think of Hitchens) that love issued as a command is simply not possible. Any claim to do such a thing should be met with suspicion.

The intriguing stuff starts when Zizek asks what is meant by the term ‘neighbour’. It isn’t, he claims, that we should have empathy or sympathy with the man on the street. It is very far removed from this. As part of his larger critique of capitalism, Zizek holds that the term ‘neighbour’ is employed only in order to distance the user from his fellow human. Humanity, claims Zizek (paradoxically in my view), has both human and inhuman aspects. The command to love one's neighbour forces you to embrace both sides.

Charity in the 21st century, is not what it seems, says Zizek. The real motivation for giving to the poor isn’t that you want to help your neighbour; it’s just that you couldn’t care less and want to forget about the issue, but want to feel like it’s ok to forget.

Zizek skilfully extends this critique of religion to a political one and then back again, and if you fancy some quick-paced thinking, check out this video, the first part of which is posted below.



Remember, I’m just a blogger, so don’t go taking this post to your philosophy lecturer. If you want to learn more about Zizek, listen to the man himself.