There are those, on the one hand, who claim that religious believers are in some sense responsible for the crimes committed in the name of their particular faith throughout the ages. There are others in turn who claim that atheists are responsible for ‘the crimes of atheism’; citing the dark events of the last century as their main examples. It seems to me that these claims are both misleading. However, religion has the capacity to play a more sinister role than any rationalist perspective.
It is generally agreed that in order to be held responsible for an act, one must be able to be held accountable for it. In others words; if something goes wrong, it was partly your fault. Blame can be assigned to you as an individual. If you fail to act, or act wrongly, in a situation where you happen to be responsible, it would be appropriate to hand out some penalty to you.
Take the claim that religious believers bear some responsibility for crimes committed explicitly in the name of their faith. The Crusades and Catholicism is an often used and suitable example. Do modern day Catholics deserve punishment for what was done thousands of years ago simply because they share a belief system? It seems to me to be wholly unjustifiable to accuse Catholics in any way of being responsible for that particular event. In a similar way, on this basic level, those who wrongly attribute the Nazi’s of being ‘Darwinian’ cannot portion blame on those who accept Natural Selection as scientific fact. The debate must shift from this kind of name-calling. It is unhelpful and misguided. The question must be this: can both ‘the crimes of theism’ and ‘the crimes of atheism’ honestly be attributed to their respective beliefs?
Starting by examining theism, it seems uncontroversial to state that the crusades, the inquisition, the murder of the Cathars, the crimes of the Taliban etc, were all religiously motivated. There have been, and there still are, crimes committed in the name of religious belief. If you try to remove faith from the picture, none of these things could have occurred. In many of those cases, the command to commit acts of violence came from an internally agreed and unanimous leader – I am of course referring to the Pope. These crimes were explicitly committed in the name of a religious belief. This is a danger of theism; there is always a higher authority present that can be employed to justify any act. I’m reminded of a quote from Steven Weinberg “With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion”.
What can motivate a human being to kill another member of their species? Perhaps many things, but among them, and high on the list, is certainty. To commit atrocities in the name of anything, you must be completely certain you are correct. Religion, unlike rationalism, makes claims to such certainty. Bertrand Russell once said “I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong”. He hit the nail on the head. A rational human being would simply find it illogical to die for a belief. You might die to save a dear friend or family member, for a loved one, but for an ideology? It just doesn’t make sense. Atheism (essentially extremely weak agnosticism) is simply a result of a rationalistic world. Uncertainty is part of the deal. The opposite is true for religion. The regimes of Stalin and Hitler were so successful at mass murder because their leaders became Gods. They had in themselves, and they demanded from others, an unshakeable faith. The historian Dmitri Volkogonov writes this: 'Stalin wanted to believe in his own strength of will, his own invulnerability, his own position as regional leader. Faith, as the cement of dogmatism, remained with him forever’ and that 'Faith in one's ideas and values is well and good, but faith should not displace truth'. To call Stalin’s outlook ‘rationalistic’ is impossible. To call this type of dogmatic surrender ‘religious’ is an apt comparison.
Believers may claim that their species of faith is as different to those religious crusaders as my view of atheism is compared to Stalin’s. They would be quite correct. However, they must understand that central aspects of their religious belief, namely their faith and inseparable certainty, are the real reasons behind the atrocities of history.
Tuesday, 29 December 2009
Sunday, 27 December 2009
Refuting Common Sense & Pascal's Wager
This essay was written by Eric Stockhausen. Eric is an 18 year-old freethinker from Texas. In this essay he tries to refute both the author Steven E. Landsburg and his believing brother who offered him 'common sense' arguments for God's existence.
I have heard arguments for belief that range from ‘common sense’ to usefulness. The common sense argument generally aim at how it is ‘impossible’ for a god (and they mean God) not to exist. Anyone who studied the history of science knows that nature goes against common sense. Two examples that spring to mind include heliocentricity and quantum mechanics.
There may be many things human minds may not be able to conceive, which is why I dislike mathematics being used to heavily in theories for or against a god. Steven E. Landsburg, writer of The Big Questions, uses his understanding of mathematics to prove that both intelligent design and Richard Dawkins are both using flawed arguments. The problem is he evokes Euclidian geometry and ‘conceivable’ mathematics. The universe has ‘inconceivable geometry’. The evidence for general relativity on the macro-level has shown that we do not exist in the simplistic three dimensions of Euclid. The problem of looking at the universe in a traditional mathematics approach is that one does not realize that nature is very different to our expectations.
To be fair, Landsberg’s arguments do not rest on top of Euclidian geometry; but on principles I believe many atheists may agree with; like mathematics in totality is very complex. Anyone who has studied calculus and trigonometry know the way mathematics works is very complex in the sense of proofs and mathematical relationships. I would not agree with Richard Dawkins, if he had believed that it was philosophically impossible for there to be an intelligent designer. I have heard Richard Dawkins use qualifiers forming the distinction between philosophical knowledge and empirical knowledge. For instance, philosophically, I do not know if the universe was created five minutes ago. Richard Dawkins, on principle, does not believe it like most people.
Landsburg ends his argument against Richard Dawkins’ atheism with the problematic Pascal’s Wager. Basically, it argues that the possible benefits of belief justify belief. On the same logic, the belief that (A) believing in unicorns will give me (B) fifty million dollars is justified (he actually states fifty million dollars would justify a wager for a Nigerian scam in a footnote). One problem is that anyone can replace A and B with whatever they want, even believing with disbelieving. Another is that most people would not believe in unicorns just because I said there would be a benefit in it for them. What I think is most telling about this is that it makes the mistake of confusing genuine belief with a gamble. A person cannot believe with Pascal’s Wager but only assert that they believe. The person claims to believe not because they do but because it is beneficial. Belief is an intelligent decision based on the best of one’s knowledge. If a person really thinks he or she believes in a god because of Pascal’s Wager, they are deluding themselves. Even Landsburg admits that it is very unlikely that God exists.
In conclusion, common sense can be wrong and cannot prove god’s existence; Pascal’s Wager is only seems useful to the faithful in its narrow interpretation but it has a whole world of philosophical problems.
The views expressed in this post are those of the author and don't necessarily reflect the views of Young Freethought's editors.
I have heard arguments for belief that range from ‘common sense’ to usefulness. The common sense argument generally aim at how it is ‘impossible’ for a god (and they mean God) not to exist. Anyone who studied the history of science knows that nature goes against common sense. Two examples that spring to mind include heliocentricity and quantum mechanics.
There may be many things human minds may not be able to conceive, which is why I dislike mathematics being used to heavily in theories for or against a god. Steven E. Landsburg, writer of The Big Questions, uses his understanding of mathematics to prove that both intelligent design and Richard Dawkins are both using flawed arguments. The problem is he evokes Euclidian geometry and ‘conceivable’ mathematics. The universe has ‘inconceivable geometry’. The evidence for general relativity on the macro-level has shown that we do not exist in the simplistic three dimensions of Euclid. The problem of looking at the universe in a traditional mathematics approach is that one does not realize that nature is very different to our expectations.
To be fair, Landsberg’s arguments do not rest on top of Euclidian geometry; but on principles I believe many atheists may agree with; like mathematics in totality is very complex. Anyone who has studied calculus and trigonometry know the way mathematics works is very complex in the sense of proofs and mathematical relationships. I would not agree with Richard Dawkins, if he had believed that it was philosophically impossible for there to be an intelligent designer. I have heard Richard Dawkins use qualifiers forming the distinction between philosophical knowledge and empirical knowledge. For instance, philosophically, I do not know if the universe was created five minutes ago. Richard Dawkins, on principle, does not believe it like most people.
Landsburg ends his argument against Richard Dawkins’ atheism with the problematic Pascal’s Wager. Basically, it argues that the possible benefits of belief justify belief. On the same logic, the belief that (A) believing in unicorns will give me (B) fifty million dollars is justified (he actually states fifty million dollars would justify a wager for a Nigerian scam in a footnote). One problem is that anyone can replace A and B with whatever they want, even believing with disbelieving. Another is that most people would not believe in unicorns just because I said there would be a benefit in it for them. What I think is most telling about this is that it makes the mistake of confusing genuine belief with a gamble. A person cannot believe with Pascal’s Wager but only assert that they believe. The person claims to believe not because they do but because it is beneficial. Belief is an intelligent decision based on the best of one’s knowledge. If a person really thinks he or she believes in a god because of Pascal’s Wager, they are deluding themselves. Even Landsburg admits that it is very unlikely that God exists.
In conclusion, common sense can be wrong and cannot prove god’s existence; Pascal’s Wager is only seems useful to the faithful in its narrow interpretation but it has a whole world of philosophical problems.
The views expressed in this post are those of the author and don't necessarily reflect the views of Young Freethought's editors.
Wednesday, 23 December 2009
Secularism & The East
In local news, two questions have been added to the suggestion list. After a detailed essay by Kyle Eschen on the reasons why America is constitutionally not a Christian nation - I want to know why then, it most certainly is a Christian nation. Why are bible-bashers most commonly found in the most visionary secular nation in the world? And just why is it that here in Britain, almost exclusively lagging behind Scandinavia in terms of religious non-belief, does the population seem not too fussed? Does the lack of religion in the state mean people crave it more in their daily lives? And vice-versa – does its presence in the political system and the enshrined status of the CofE mean that in people's private lives, they'd just rather forget about the whole thing? Whilst, I'm guessing, the majority in Britain would perhaps vaguely believe in some kind of supernatural force in the universe, America is second to none for fervent Christianity. Why?
For the second question we look east. Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism, Hinduism... I haven't heard much talk from the new atheists about any of these religions (or faiths). Perhaps this can be put down to the unfamiliar nature of such religions, or, to put it bluntly, western ignorance. Do these faiths pose so much of a threat as the three monotheisms we are all familiar with? Can we learn anything from them? How do we battle such faiths? Feel free to pick up on any aspect of these religions you like.
I look forward to publishing your responses.
For the second question we look east. Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism, Hinduism... I haven't heard much talk from the new atheists about any of these religions (or faiths). Perhaps this can be put down to the unfamiliar nature of such religions, or, to put it bluntly, western ignorance. Do these faiths pose so much of a threat as the three monotheisms we are all familiar with? Can we learn anything from them? How do we battle such faiths? Feel free to pick up on any aspect of these religions you like.
I look forward to publishing your responses.
Sunday, 20 December 2009
D'Souza - Don't Try This At Home
I was recently watching one of the many atheist/theist debates available on YouTube. I’m sure I’m not the only one who has spent many a lazy afternoon this way. One of the more unusual formats I’ve stumbled across was to be found in a debate, of Spanish origin, between three of the four horsemen; Hitchens, Harris and Dennett on the one hand, and D’Souza, Taleb and Boteach on the other. There were many potential topics for discussion hidden away over the two or so hours the debate went on for, but I want to focus on one small segment courtesy of Dinesh D’Souza.
I am yet to find an opponent of ‘new atheism’ as thought-provoking as D’Souza. There are certain questions that he asks which every freethinking atheist must ask themselves. There are moments where he seems to be speaking real sense – he asks the right questions, but draws erroneous conclusions. The majority of what he says is white noise. But, as you may have guessed, there are moments when he really gets it wrong – quite astoundingly wrong. I (or even better; a reader) will discuss D’Souza’s more credible claims at some point in the future. But for now, I couldn’t let what I heard go without addressing it. Here is the video I urge you to watch before reading any further.
“The atheist” exclaims D’Souza “is posing as the champion of reason, science and evidence”. Since this is what Young Freethought is all about, it only seems fair to address his points.
D’Souza’s argument tumbles fantastically with his statement that the atheist and the theist are “both are making a truth claim and [that] both are totally ignorant” – It is only the theist who is making a truth claim. D’Souza seems to concede at this point, for the sake of debate, that there is no evidence for life after death. The reasonable person will not claim that there is life after death, nor will they claim that on the basis of the lack of evidence, there is no life after death. All that can be done is to say ‘since there is no evidence of life after death, I have no reason to believe it’. An analogy that is perhaps clichéd, but nonetheless apt: there is no evidence for the existence of fairies, nor is there any evidence against their existence. Is it more reasonable to believe that fairies exist or that they do not? Of course, it is to say that they do not. Strictly speaking, it must be conceded that it is indeed possible that they do exist, but what reason is there to believe it? Simply none. An incredibly watered-down agnosticism is the position held. The same can be said about pink unicorns, the flying spaghetti monster and the yeti. No reasonable mind would entertain the possibility that these creations do in fact exist – they would only remain open to the possibility of their truth. The concept of life after death is specifically designed to be immune to falsifiability.
Of course, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but a lack of evidence where some might be expected can indeed suggest that a proposition is false. Luckily we have a world which we can observe; providing us with the raw material for decision making. We might expect that a Christian God who created a world where we continue living after our bodily death would have left some hallmarks on his creation; we might expect, that since we are special in our ability to survive death, that humans are granted some special place in the universe, we might even expect to have some encounter with the deceased – we find none of these things.
The reason, however, I take such issue with this speech is the complete pseudo-scientific conclusions D’Souza draws from the frontiers of scientific inquiry. What D’Souza spouts is worse than the God of the Gaps. He relegates himself to a league shared by scientologists who measure your ‘thetan levels’, mystics who take away your ‘negative energy’ with the power of crystals and T.V hosts who communicate with ghosts with the aid of their ‘spirit guides’. I’m pretty certain D’Souza treats these people’s arguments in the same way freethinkers do; so why does he use them? I sincerely cannot think how or why.
D’Souza, like the charlatans, uses the mystery of quantum mechanics to justify his position. The many-words interpretation of quantum mechanics is slowly gaining popularity and overthrowing the long-held ‘orthodox’ Copenhagen interpretation. I am certainly no quantum physicist, so I’ll keep my science brief. The idea of ‘many-worlds’ states that what was previously considered to be the collapse of a wavefunction (a kind of quantum probability spread) does not exist. Every possible outcome does occur and we only witness one. The others occur in an ever growing number of parallel universes. More QM literate readers can correct me, but I think I’m right in stating that a large number of possibilities all occur and do so in parallel universes. D’Souza asserts that better known ideas, such as the Big Bang and Dark Matter, also all point towards a ‘material resurrection’.
Not only is this simply the God of the Gaps at its most blatant – it is a complete farce. The illogic involved is stupendous: we don’t know what the majority of matter is, therefore the likelihood is that a mass material resurrection will occur when Jesus Christ returns. It is frustrating to see an apologist so able to stop rational people becoming complacent by challenging them on important issues reduced to such piffle.
Please Dinesh – don‘t repeat this.
I am yet to find an opponent of ‘new atheism’ as thought-provoking as D’Souza. There are certain questions that he asks which every freethinking atheist must ask themselves. There are moments where he seems to be speaking real sense – he asks the right questions, but draws erroneous conclusions. The majority of what he says is white noise. But, as you may have guessed, there are moments when he really gets it wrong – quite astoundingly wrong. I (or even better; a reader) will discuss D’Souza’s more credible claims at some point in the future. But for now, I couldn’t let what I heard go without addressing it. Here is the video I urge you to watch before reading any further.
“The atheist” exclaims D’Souza “is posing as the champion of reason, science and evidence”. Since this is what Young Freethought is all about, it only seems fair to address his points.
D’Souza’s argument tumbles fantastically with his statement that the atheist and the theist are “both are making a truth claim and [that] both are totally ignorant” – It is only the theist who is making a truth claim. D’Souza seems to concede at this point, for the sake of debate, that there is no evidence for life after death. The reasonable person will not claim that there is life after death, nor will they claim that on the basis of the lack of evidence, there is no life after death. All that can be done is to say ‘since there is no evidence of life after death, I have no reason to believe it’. An analogy that is perhaps clichéd, but nonetheless apt: there is no evidence for the existence of fairies, nor is there any evidence against their existence. Is it more reasonable to believe that fairies exist or that they do not? Of course, it is to say that they do not. Strictly speaking, it must be conceded that it is indeed possible that they do exist, but what reason is there to believe it? Simply none. An incredibly watered-down agnosticism is the position held. The same can be said about pink unicorns, the flying spaghetti monster and the yeti. No reasonable mind would entertain the possibility that these creations do in fact exist – they would only remain open to the possibility of their truth. The concept of life after death is specifically designed to be immune to falsifiability.
Of course, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but a lack of evidence where some might be expected can indeed suggest that a proposition is false. Luckily we have a world which we can observe; providing us with the raw material for decision making. We might expect that a Christian God who created a world where we continue living after our bodily death would have left some hallmarks on his creation; we might expect, that since we are special in our ability to survive death, that humans are granted some special place in the universe, we might even expect to have some encounter with the deceased – we find none of these things.
The reason, however, I take such issue with this speech is the complete pseudo-scientific conclusions D’Souza draws from the frontiers of scientific inquiry. What D’Souza spouts is worse than the God of the Gaps. He relegates himself to a league shared by scientologists who measure your ‘thetan levels’, mystics who take away your ‘negative energy’ with the power of crystals and T.V hosts who communicate with ghosts with the aid of their ‘spirit guides’. I’m pretty certain D’Souza treats these people’s arguments in the same way freethinkers do; so why does he use them? I sincerely cannot think how or why.
D’Souza, like the charlatans, uses the mystery of quantum mechanics to justify his position. The many-words interpretation of quantum mechanics is slowly gaining popularity and overthrowing the long-held ‘orthodox’ Copenhagen interpretation. I am certainly no quantum physicist, so I’ll keep my science brief. The idea of ‘many-worlds’ states that what was previously considered to be the collapse of a wavefunction (a kind of quantum probability spread) does not exist. Every possible outcome does occur and we only witness one. The others occur in an ever growing number of parallel universes. More QM literate readers can correct me, but I think I’m right in stating that a large number of possibilities all occur and do so in parallel universes. D’Souza asserts that better known ideas, such as the Big Bang and Dark Matter, also all point towards a ‘material resurrection’.
Not only is this simply the God of the Gaps at its most blatant – it is a complete farce. The illogic involved is stupendous: we don’t know what the majority of matter is, therefore the likelihood is that a mass material resurrection will occur when Jesus Christ returns. It is frustrating to see an apologist so able to stop rational people becoming complacent by challenging them on important issues reduced to such piffle.
Please Dinesh – don‘t repeat this.
Saturday, 19 December 2009
America Is Not A Christian Nation
This informative essay was written by Kyle Eschen. Kyle is studying economics, international business and film studies at the University of Florida. He descirbes himself as a libertarian, an objectivist and an atheist. Here he examies the extent to which America can be called a Christian nation.
The United States is not and has never been a Christian nation. Of course one could argue the opposite using a plethora of definitions and requirements of a ‘Christian nation’. I will argue that these alternatives are insubstantial and impractical and then advocate a more proper and practical working definition. Using this definition and its requirements I will show the United States to be substantially different from a Christian nation. The founding documents and our peculiar version of religious diversity will be brought in to aid me in this. I use the founding documents, American law, and the early diversity of Christian denominations to support my arguments.
The most common way of using the term ‘Christian nation’ refers to a country which has a large majority of its population practicing or professing adherence to a Christian religious denomination. There are no objective standards but I’ll imagine that a population of about seventy-five percent Christian is sufficient to be considered a ‘Christian nation’. Under this definition the United States would be considered such. However, a nation is more than just its population. America as a nation behaves differently to its population. Its laws are not, thankfully, based on the whims of a majority.
People try to claim America as a Christian nation by quoting many past leaders; exclaiming that the United States is indeed a “Nation under God!” If this metric were used, America would switch often and abruptly. For instance, it would have been a Christian nation just about a year ago under George Bush, who often thanked God for helping him lead, but would no longer be under Barack Obama, who has said multiple times that we are a nation of citizens, not a Christian, Muslim or Hindu nation. Some point more specifically to the founding fathers. To this, Butler would reply, “...most of those preachers would almost certainly be horrified if any of the first four Presidents of the United States- Washington, Adams, Jefferson, or Madison- turned up in their congregations and said what they really thought about Christianity. All were courageous and high-minded men, but none was a Christian in any conventional way” (Butler, 165). Thomas Jefferson even believed that priests and ministers “persuaded people to 'give up morals for mysteries' and that they took advantage of people by cheating them of their hard-earned dollars” (Butler 166).
A Christian nation is one that specifically and obviously bases its whole system of government on the Christian religion. Iran then, is a Muslim nation; there is virtually no separation of church and state. Some people agree with this definition and argue that our laws are based on the ten commandments. As it turns out, the only commandments that have anything to do with American law are the ones dealing with theft, homicide and perjury. Laws dealing with these have been around since ancient times and are definitely not reserved for religious morality. It is fair to say that society would not deem it okay to murder a person if there wasn’t a commandment for it – actually, it seems that religious texts are often used to justify murder, but I will not digress. America is famous for being 'material'; where would we be if we didn't covet our neighbour’s houses? This system of government must include the founding documents and laws of the country. It is the laws and the founding documents that determine whether a nation can really be defined as a Christian nation or not, and it is Americas laws and founding documents that explicitly show us to be free from the title.
The United States is not and has never been a Christian nation. Of course one could argue the opposite using a plethora of definitions and requirements of a ‘Christian nation’. I will argue that these alternatives are insubstantial and impractical and then advocate a more proper and practical working definition. Using this definition and its requirements I will show the United States to be substantially different from a Christian nation. The founding documents and our peculiar version of religious diversity will be brought in to aid me in this. I use the founding documents, American law, and the early diversity of Christian denominations to support my arguments.
The most common way of using the term ‘Christian nation’ refers to a country which has a large majority of its population practicing or professing adherence to a Christian religious denomination. There are no objective standards but I’ll imagine that a population of about seventy-five percent Christian is sufficient to be considered a ‘Christian nation’. Under this definition the United States would be considered such. However, a nation is more than just its population. America as a nation behaves differently to its population. Its laws are not, thankfully, based on the whims of a majority.
People try to claim America as a Christian nation by quoting many past leaders; exclaiming that the United States is indeed a “Nation under God!” If this metric were used, America would switch often and abruptly. For instance, it would have been a Christian nation just about a year ago under George Bush, who often thanked God for helping him lead, but would no longer be under Barack Obama, who has said multiple times that we are a nation of citizens, not a Christian, Muslim or Hindu nation. Some point more specifically to the founding fathers. To this, Butler would reply, “...most of those preachers would almost certainly be horrified if any of the first four Presidents of the United States- Washington, Adams, Jefferson, or Madison- turned up in their congregations and said what they really thought about Christianity. All were courageous and high-minded men, but none was a Christian in any conventional way” (Butler, 165). Thomas Jefferson even believed that priests and ministers “persuaded people to 'give up morals for mysteries' and that they took advantage of people by cheating them of their hard-earned dollars” (Butler 166).
A Christian nation is one that specifically and obviously bases its whole system of government on the Christian religion. Iran then, is a Muslim nation; there is virtually no separation of church and state. Some people agree with this definition and argue that our laws are based on the ten commandments. As it turns out, the only commandments that have anything to do with American law are the ones dealing with theft, homicide and perjury. Laws dealing with these have been around since ancient times and are definitely not reserved for religious morality. It is fair to say that society would not deem it okay to murder a person if there wasn’t a commandment for it – actually, it seems that religious texts are often used to justify murder, but I will not digress. America is famous for being 'material'; where would we be if we didn't covet our neighbour’s houses? This system of government must include the founding documents and laws of the country. It is the laws and the founding documents that determine whether a nation can really be defined as a Christian nation or not, and it is Americas laws and founding documents that explicitly show us to be free from the title.
Friday, 18 December 2009
The Week That Wasn't
First off, apologies to Young Freethought's regular readers. The last week was rather manic and I was forced to briefly put the blog on the backburner. However, the holiday season is approaching, giving me plenty of time to write and read your submissions. So send them in!
I shall once again extend my personal thanks to Richard Dawkins for his generous support. His letter has had an incredible impact on the blog and I'm sure inspired many readers. Such is its brilliance; I've put up a permanent link on the sidebar so you can easily access it at any time without having to search the ever-expanding archive.
In the coming days you can expect my thoughts on some of Christian apologist Dinesh D'Souza's arguments and an essay on Christian America. Until then...
I shall once again extend my personal thanks to Richard Dawkins for his generous support. His letter has had an incredible impact on the blog and I'm sure inspired many readers. Such is its brilliance; I've put up a permanent link on the sidebar so you can easily access it at any time without having to search the ever-expanding archive.
In the coming days you can expect my thoughts on some of Christian apologist Dinesh D'Souza's arguments and an essay on Christian America. Until then...
Sunday, 13 December 2009
Atheist Christmas
This essay from Alex Charlton, 18 years old, argues that Christmas can be celebrated by believer and non-believer alike in the spirit of giving and charity.
Christmas is fast approaching, and many people around the world will be wondering what they should take from it, and why they celebrate it. Given that Christians only make up a third of the world’s population, I would expect that most of the people who celebrate Christmas aren’t Christians. Should this be so?
For Christians, Christmas is a time to remember the birth of Jesus Christ, and his alleged sacrifice to the world. Christmas also has pre-Christian roots, and is celebrated on the 25th of December because it corresponds with the pagan winter solstice. It’s easy to see why different cultures have Winter festivals. In agricultural societies, Autumn heralded a time to harvest the crops that had been toiled over through Spring and Summer, and as Winter drew in, and the days got shorter, lights and decorations made the dark nights cheerful, and food kept away the cold.
But is there anything wrong with non-Christians celebrating Christmas? It might be suggested that we should celebrate some other, more secular holiday, such as Yule, or Winterval. However, Christmas is part of the rich tapestry of our culture. It’s often pointed out by the religious that western culture was built on Christian values, who then object that Christmas is being hijacked by secularists. The people who think that Christmas is being hijacked don’t seem to consider that you can have the giving, the goodwill, and the celebration without the supernatural woo. Indeed, Christmas has been largely divorced from Christianity, due to the widespread secularisation of the developed world.
Frankly, we should recognise religious traditions, not because they are true or sacred, but because they remind us of where we have come from, and how far we’ve progressed, since the first time a family huddled together around a fire and told each other heart warming stories to stave off the harsh Winter weather. We should be allowed enjoy the beauty of Christmas, just as we can enjoy the beauty of religiously inspired works of art. The beauty is real, even if the object of inspiration is not.
For non-Christians, Christmas is about giving: giving your time and love to your family and friends, giving to the less fortunate, and giving cheer for the wonderful life you have! Spare a thought for all those people who are worse off than you, and consider how you could help them in some small way. Over the centuries, Christmas has become something more than a celebration of Christianity; it has become a more inclusive symbol of charity, and camaraderie, which is why there’s nothing wrong with rationally celebrating Christmas, or with taking the best from Christmas and applying it to life.
Another quandary that freethinking parents have is whether they should lie to their children about Father Christmas. Of course, this is a decision people have to make for themselves, but I don’t see much wrong with playing along. In the long run, by lying to your children or siblings about Father Christmas, you’re teaching them several valuable lessons: don’t take everything people tell you on face value, and remember what it’s like to be a true believer, how you criticize evidence against your beliefs but hold onto dubious evidence that supports them. Mystical thinking is often the norm in society, and people need to be taught how to discern and debunk it.
There is an all too familiar view of atheists as nihilistic, or depressive, or selfish, and celebrating Christmas may be a way to counter such stereotypes. The fact that God doesn’t exist doesn’t mean that life isn’t worth living, or worth living morally. If this were the case, then would atheists take the time to buy gifts, and show their affection for their loved ones? No. The fact that atheists want to celebrate Christmas should challenge the accusations leveled at atheists.
In summary, there’s nothing wrong with celebrating Christmas as a non-Christian, or even as an atheist, not just because Christmas is a pretty secular holiday anyway, but also because Christmas is founded on principles that we can all celebrate: peace on Earth and goodwill to all. The beauty of Christmas is something we can all enjoy. Further, it isn’t inconsistent for freethinking parents to use the Father Christmas myth to teach their children the importance of rational thought and criticism. Finally, the interest that atheists have in Christmas falsifies common atheist stereotypes, and this should help raise the consciousness of those who think that atheism presents a gloomy view of the world.
I hope that this essay has helped young freethinkers to better understand the role of Christmas for unbelievers, and challenged the popular notion that Christmas is the preserve of Christians. To the readers at Young Freethought, may I wish you all a merry Christmas, and a happy New Year.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and don't necessarily reflect the views of Young Freethought's editors.
Christmas is fast approaching, and many people around the world will be wondering what they should take from it, and why they celebrate it. Given that Christians only make up a third of the world’s population, I would expect that most of the people who celebrate Christmas aren’t Christians. Should this be so?
For Christians, Christmas is a time to remember the birth of Jesus Christ, and his alleged sacrifice to the world. Christmas also has pre-Christian roots, and is celebrated on the 25th of December because it corresponds with the pagan winter solstice. It’s easy to see why different cultures have Winter festivals. In agricultural societies, Autumn heralded a time to harvest the crops that had been toiled over through Spring and Summer, and as Winter drew in, and the days got shorter, lights and decorations made the dark nights cheerful, and food kept away the cold.
But is there anything wrong with non-Christians celebrating Christmas? It might be suggested that we should celebrate some other, more secular holiday, such as Yule, or Winterval. However, Christmas is part of the rich tapestry of our culture. It’s often pointed out by the religious that western culture was built on Christian values, who then object that Christmas is being hijacked by secularists. The people who think that Christmas is being hijacked don’t seem to consider that you can have the giving, the goodwill, and the celebration without the supernatural woo. Indeed, Christmas has been largely divorced from Christianity, due to the widespread secularisation of the developed world.
Frankly, we should recognise religious traditions, not because they are true or sacred, but because they remind us of where we have come from, and how far we’ve progressed, since the first time a family huddled together around a fire and told each other heart warming stories to stave off the harsh Winter weather. We should be allowed enjoy the beauty of Christmas, just as we can enjoy the beauty of religiously inspired works of art. The beauty is real, even if the object of inspiration is not.
For non-Christians, Christmas is about giving: giving your time and love to your family and friends, giving to the less fortunate, and giving cheer for the wonderful life you have! Spare a thought for all those people who are worse off than you, and consider how you could help them in some small way. Over the centuries, Christmas has become something more than a celebration of Christianity; it has become a more inclusive symbol of charity, and camaraderie, which is why there’s nothing wrong with rationally celebrating Christmas, or with taking the best from Christmas and applying it to life.
Another quandary that freethinking parents have is whether they should lie to their children about Father Christmas. Of course, this is a decision people have to make for themselves, but I don’t see much wrong with playing along. In the long run, by lying to your children or siblings about Father Christmas, you’re teaching them several valuable lessons: don’t take everything people tell you on face value, and remember what it’s like to be a true believer, how you criticize evidence against your beliefs but hold onto dubious evidence that supports them. Mystical thinking is often the norm in society, and people need to be taught how to discern and debunk it.
There is an all too familiar view of atheists as nihilistic, or depressive, or selfish, and celebrating Christmas may be a way to counter such stereotypes. The fact that God doesn’t exist doesn’t mean that life isn’t worth living, or worth living morally. If this were the case, then would atheists take the time to buy gifts, and show their affection for their loved ones? No. The fact that atheists want to celebrate Christmas should challenge the accusations leveled at atheists.
In summary, there’s nothing wrong with celebrating Christmas as a non-Christian, or even as an atheist, not just because Christmas is a pretty secular holiday anyway, but also because Christmas is founded on principles that we can all celebrate: peace on Earth and goodwill to all. The beauty of Christmas is something we can all enjoy. Further, it isn’t inconsistent for freethinking parents to use the Father Christmas myth to teach their children the importance of rational thought and criticism. Finally, the interest that atheists have in Christmas falsifies common atheist stereotypes, and this should help raise the consciousness of those who think that atheism presents a gloomy view of the world.
I hope that this essay has helped young freethinkers to better understand the role of Christmas for unbelievers, and challenged the popular notion that Christmas is the preserve of Christians. To the readers at Young Freethought, may I wish you all a merry Christmas, and a happy New Year.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and don't necessarily reflect the views of Young Freethought's editors.
Thursday, 10 December 2009
The Need To Rethink The Atheist Movement
This short essay is by John Kubinski. John is an 18 year old student in his first year at the University of Virginia hoping start in a career in genetics and one day write popular science books. He aruges that there is a need to properly re-frame the atheist movement, so as to make it clear that the movement rests on philosophical principles and not belief in specific propositions.
The atheist movement is in need of a proper framing. The fight is not being waged over a proposition; it’s being waged over a mentality. What is being decried is not belief in what appears to be a false claim about reality, it’s about the way in which that false belief was arrived at.
It must be made clear that disbelief in God is not the central principle; the ideas surrounding the movement do not flow forth from this notion. But rather, disbelief in God flows as a natural consequence from critical inquiry and the use of reason. Adherence to rationality needs to become inextricably linked with the atheist ethos (it is on the inside, but this is not the case for most outsiders). We can no longer allow the debate to continue to be framed as a competition of mutually incompatible propositions, because that’s not ultimately what it is about. This clash consists of the use of reason and scepticism versus the surrender of the mind to faith. It is not creationism versus evolution. Just as it is not about the heliocentric model versus the geocentric model. And it’s not about the moral status of fertilized eggs. And it’s not about the rights of homosexuals. And we probably shouldn’t even say it’s about science versus religion, because this, once again, allows the debate to be misconstrued as a battle between a group of beliefs (scientific facts and religious claims.) In its deepest roots it’s about thinking and non-thinking; it’s about approaching the world and being ready to form arguments with no assumptions. It’s about forming a worldview from the facts up, not from predetermined conclusions down.
The incompatibility of science and religion isn’t something that inevitably “arises” as some say. The incompatibility is something that is. Before either one makes any sort of claim about reality, they are in direct opposition. Religion is not antithetical to science because there are disputes about the facts; the antithesis arises in how the facts are arrived at. Science is in a philosophical conflict with religion of the severest kind. A willingness to believe claims without evidence, and further to refuse reason the right to bear influence on your views, is just unacceptable. From square one, the epistemological groundwork religions lay down is a challenge to science. If by some miracle a religion had in its tenets a complete theory of electromagnetism, Darwinian evolution, plate tectonics and thermodynamics, it wouldn’t make a difference, because if belief in these propositions was arrived at via faith and not through examination of evidence and the application of reason, then science would still be at odds with this religion. Factual content is not the ultimate source of the conflict. It is the religious mindset, and the virtue of faith, which we wish to destroy. We don’t just want people to believe in scientific theories; we want them to think scientifically. If we don’t accomplish this type of systemic change, the content of our arguments will never matter, because arguments themselves won’t matter. The gravity of how essential this problem is cannot be overstated. It seems Martin Luther had a grasp of what was at stake when he stated this (perhaps the worst quote in human history):
“Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and ... know nothing but the word of God.”
So let us frame the atheist project in a new way with improved clarity: We are not trying to change the memes people serve as hosts to, we are trying to change the memetic selecting agents that are responsible for how memes propagate. This is the real change we must fight for.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and don't necessarily reflect the views of Young Freethought's editors.
The atheist movement is in need of a proper framing. The fight is not being waged over a proposition; it’s being waged over a mentality. What is being decried is not belief in what appears to be a false claim about reality, it’s about the way in which that false belief was arrived at.
It must be made clear that disbelief in God is not the central principle; the ideas surrounding the movement do not flow forth from this notion. But rather, disbelief in God flows as a natural consequence from critical inquiry and the use of reason. Adherence to rationality needs to become inextricably linked with the atheist ethos (it is on the inside, but this is not the case for most outsiders). We can no longer allow the debate to continue to be framed as a competition of mutually incompatible propositions, because that’s not ultimately what it is about. This clash consists of the use of reason and scepticism versus the surrender of the mind to faith. It is not creationism versus evolution. Just as it is not about the heliocentric model versus the geocentric model. And it’s not about the moral status of fertilized eggs. And it’s not about the rights of homosexuals. And we probably shouldn’t even say it’s about science versus religion, because this, once again, allows the debate to be misconstrued as a battle between a group of beliefs (scientific facts and religious claims.) In its deepest roots it’s about thinking and non-thinking; it’s about approaching the world and being ready to form arguments with no assumptions. It’s about forming a worldview from the facts up, not from predetermined conclusions down.
The incompatibility of science and religion isn’t something that inevitably “arises” as some say. The incompatibility is something that is. Before either one makes any sort of claim about reality, they are in direct opposition. Religion is not antithetical to science because there are disputes about the facts; the antithesis arises in how the facts are arrived at. Science is in a philosophical conflict with religion of the severest kind. A willingness to believe claims without evidence, and further to refuse reason the right to bear influence on your views, is just unacceptable. From square one, the epistemological groundwork religions lay down is a challenge to science. If by some miracle a religion had in its tenets a complete theory of electromagnetism, Darwinian evolution, plate tectonics and thermodynamics, it wouldn’t make a difference, because if belief in these propositions was arrived at via faith and not through examination of evidence and the application of reason, then science would still be at odds with this religion. Factual content is not the ultimate source of the conflict. It is the religious mindset, and the virtue of faith, which we wish to destroy. We don’t just want people to believe in scientific theories; we want them to think scientifically. If we don’t accomplish this type of systemic change, the content of our arguments will never matter, because arguments themselves won’t matter. The gravity of how essential this problem is cannot be overstated. It seems Martin Luther had a grasp of what was at stake when he stated this (perhaps the worst quote in human history):
“Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and ... know nothing but the word of God.”
So let us frame the atheist project in a new way with improved clarity: We are not trying to change the memes people serve as hosts to, we are trying to change the memetic selecting agents that are responsible for how memes propagate. This is the real change we must fight for.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and don't necessarily reflect the views of Young Freethought's editors.
Monday, 7 December 2009
Bill O'Reilly - Antihero of Freethought
A motivation for one of our suggested articles. Ad hominem attacks should be avoided, they are pernicious and often irrelevant, but Bill O’Reilly is simply crazy. The namesake of the Fox show The O’Reilly Factor boasts one of the biggest followings for a ‘news’ programme on American TV, so this isn't picking on the weak or obscure. His latest attack (video below the post) on the ‘deluded’ atheist band is almost too hard to criticise through its astounding unreason. In response to posters published by the American Humanist Association which read ‘Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness’ sake’, O’Reilly had this to say:
“So why does the American Humanist Society, who wants to be good for goodness’ sake, why do they loathe the baby Jesus? He’s just a baby”
Adding...
“You don’t sell atheism by running down a baby do ya?’ How do you sell atheism by running down a baby? It’s just a baby”
For what it’s worth, here is the quasi-syllogism that perhaps went on in O’Reilly’s head (and I really have tried to be fair here):
Proposition 1 – The American Humanist Association believe you can be good without God or a god and release posters saying just this.
Proposition 2 – The baby Jesus was God.
Conclusion – Therefore atheists loath the baby Jesus and try to promote atheism by insulting a baby.
At this point, one of O’Reilly’s Angels even began laughing and later chuckled ‘I think you’re nuts’. Yes... Quite. Maybe they aren’t so immune to logic after all.
In a similar ‘infantocentric’ vein, O’Reilly writes this in his newspaper column –
‘But there is a serious side to this, and the American "humanists" should listen up. Christmas is a joyous time for children; that's the big upside of celebrating the birth of Jesus. Why, then, do people who want to "be good" spend money denigrating a beautiful day? Could it be that the humanists are not really interested in good at all? Maybe.’
This illogicality would even lead me to doubt the man’s sincerity if it weren’t for the abrasive and close-minded tone with which he is so synonymous.
But this argument is just a prelude to O’Reilly’s dialectical masterpiece, the pièce de résistance as he sees it: atheists hate Christmas because atheists are jealous. He writes –
‘The question is, why bother? Why spend money at Christmas time to spread dubious will among men? The reason, I believe, is that the atheists are jealous of the Yuletide season. While Christians have Jesus and Jews have the prophets, non-believers have Bill Maher. There are no atheist Christmas carols, no pagan displays of largesse like Santa Claus. In fact, for the non-believer, Christmas is just a day off, a time to consider that Mardi Gras is less than two months away.’
I’ll let you be the judge of that and our proposed article on atheist Christmas celebrations should be just the place. View our ‘Suggested Topics’ section for the full title. Detailed cross-examinations of O’Reilly are welcome too – if you’re brain can handle such nonsense without self-destructing that is.
“So why does the American Humanist Society, who wants to be good for goodness’ sake, why do they loathe the baby Jesus? He’s just a baby”
Adding...
“You don’t sell atheism by running down a baby do ya?’ How do you sell atheism by running down a baby? It’s just a baby”
For what it’s worth, here is the quasi-syllogism that perhaps went on in O’Reilly’s head (and I really have tried to be fair here):
Proposition 1 – The American Humanist Association believe you can be good without God or a god and release posters saying just this.
Proposition 2 – The baby Jesus was God.
Conclusion – Therefore atheists loath the baby Jesus and try to promote atheism by insulting a baby.
At this point, one of O’Reilly’s Angels even began laughing and later chuckled ‘I think you’re nuts’. Yes... Quite. Maybe they aren’t so immune to logic after all.
In a similar ‘infantocentric’ vein, O’Reilly writes this in his newspaper column –
‘But there is a serious side to this, and the American "humanists" should listen up. Christmas is a joyous time for children; that's the big upside of celebrating the birth of Jesus. Why, then, do people who want to "be good" spend money denigrating a beautiful day? Could it be that the humanists are not really interested in good at all? Maybe.’
This illogicality would even lead me to doubt the man’s sincerity if it weren’t for the abrasive and close-minded tone with which he is so synonymous.
But this argument is just a prelude to O’Reilly’s dialectical masterpiece, the pièce de résistance as he sees it: atheists hate Christmas because atheists are jealous. He writes –
‘The question is, why bother? Why spend money at Christmas time to spread dubious will among men? The reason, I believe, is that the atheists are jealous of the Yuletide season. While Christians have Jesus and Jews have the prophets, non-believers have Bill Maher. There are no atheist Christmas carols, no pagan displays of largesse like Santa Claus. In fact, for the non-believer, Christmas is just a day off, a time to consider that Mardi Gras is less than two months away.’
I’ll let you be the judge of that and our proposed article on atheist Christmas celebrations should be just the place. View our ‘Suggested Topics’ section for the full title. Detailed cross-examinations of O’Reilly are welcome too – if you’re brain can handle such nonsense without self-destructing that is.
Sunday, 6 December 2009
A Message Of Support From Richard Dawkins
I am honoured that Richard Dawkins has responded to this blog and advocates so passionately and thoughtfully all that it stands for. This is his letter of support to Young Freethought.
I was delighted when Michael wrote to tell me about youngfreethought.com. So delighted that I hope you will overlook my age and allow me to explain why I think you are making such a valiant contribution to the cause of atheism, rationalism and secularism.
It is all too easy for debates about the role of religion to become inward-looking and academic, but it really does matter. Every day, all across the world, millions of our fellow humans are diminished by religion: religion that may force them to mutilate their children, cover their hair or faces, stay silent when they have so much more to say than those who suppress them, surrender control over their reproduction, donate money they cannot afford, obey and submit to their inferiors, deny reality, forgo education, close their minds, reject proper medical care, suffer needlessly, be burdened by pointless guilt, and live with the spectre of eternal torment. Every day, religion works to recruit more victims, among the young, the sick, the poor and dispossessed, the old: anyone who is weak and vulnerable is a legitimate target in religion’s eyes.
Of course, in any civilised society people must be free to believe whatever they want, but this doesn't mean those beliefs should be automatically shielded from challenge just because they are religious, and it certainly doesn't mean they should be enshrined in law or promulgated by the state. It doesn't mean that the state should abet churches and mosques and temples in trying to convert young minds in schools. It doesn't mean that young people should be divided from one another throughout their all-important school lives purely because their parents happen to follow different creeds. It doesn't mean we should allow our state broadcaster to perpetuate the myth that you need religion to be good. It doesn't mean that the minority of people who are actively religious should have privileged access to our lawmakers, their opinions sought out by policy makers, their bishops sit, as of right, in the House of Lords, their representatives automatically packing government committees or Royal Commissions with an ethical brief. It doesn't mean that our hard-pressed NHS should squander money paying chaplains out of its already over-stretched budgets. It doesn't mean that schools should be obliged to force pupils into daily acts of worship.
Every major battle for the advancement of human rights has been won in the teeth of fierce religious opposition: whether it's the abolition of slavery, equality for women or gays, freedom of speech, the abolition of the blasphemy law, the right of a woman to control her own fertility, or the right of the terminally ill to choose to end their suffering with dignity and medical assistance.
So, this really matters – in the real world and not just in internet chatrooms. Of course we must leave people in peace to practise religion if they so choose. But the rest of us must be left in peace to live our lives without it. The religious want more and more influence over government policy and, if they succeed, our society will be the poorer: less tolerant, less equal, less just, less educated, less rational. These issues should matter to all of us, but young people are the ones who should care most of all. You will inherit the societies that current governments leave behind. This is your future we are talking about, and the kind of society you want to live in.
If you want – and what decent person wouldn't? – to live with the best Enlightenment values, live free and tolerant and committed to knowledge and education and reason, then you must speak up and let your voices be heard.
This is why I welcome this blog so wholeheartedly. You will shape our society’s future, and it is exhilarating to see you preparing to do so.
All good wishes
Richard Dawkins
I was delighted when Michael wrote to tell me about youngfreethought.com. So delighted that I hope you will overlook my age and allow me to explain why I think you are making such a valiant contribution to the cause of atheism, rationalism and secularism.
It is all too easy for debates about the role of religion to become inward-looking and academic, but it really does matter. Every day, all across the world, millions of our fellow humans are diminished by religion: religion that may force them to mutilate their children, cover their hair or faces, stay silent when they have so much more to say than those who suppress them, surrender control over their reproduction, donate money they cannot afford, obey and submit to their inferiors, deny reality, forgo education, close their minds, reject proper medical care, suffer needlessly, be burdened by pointless guilt, and live with the spectre of eternal torment. Every day, religion works to recruit more victims, among the young, the sick, the poor and dispossessed, the old: anyone who is weak and vulnerable is a legitimate target in religion’s eyes.
Of course, in any civilised society people must be free to believe whatever they want, but this doesn't mean those beliefs should be automatically shielded from challenge just because they are religious, and it certainly doesn't mean they should be enshrined in law or promulgated by the state. It doesn't mean that the state should abet churches and mosques and temples in trying to convert young minds in schools. It doesn't mean that young people should be divided from one another throughout their all-important school lives purely because their parents happen to follow different creeds. It doesn't mean we should allow our state broadcaster to perpetuate the myth that you need religion to be good. It doesn't mean that the minority of people who are actively religious should have privileged access to our lawmakers, their opinions sought out by policy makers, their bishops sit, as of right, in the House of Lords, their representatives automatically packing government committees or Royal Commissions with an ethical brief. It doesn't mean that our hard-pressed NHS should squander money paying chaplains out of its already over-stretched budgets. It doesn't mean that schools should be obliged to force pupils into daily acts of worship.
Every major battle for the advancement of human rights has been won in the teeth of fierce religious opposition: whether it's the abolition of slavery, equality for women or gays, freedom of speech, the abolition of the blasphemy law, the right of a woman to control her own fertility, or the right of the terminally ill to choose to end their suffering with dignity and medical assistance.
So, this really matters – in the real world and not just in internet chatrooms. Of course we must leave people in peace to practise religion if they so choose. But the rest of us must be left in peace to live our lives without it. The religious want more and more influence over government policy and, if they succeed, our society will be the poorer: less tolerant, less equal, less just, less educated, less rational. These issues should matter to all of us, but young people are the ones who should care most of all. You will inherit the societies that current governments leave behind. This is your future we are talking about, and the kind of society you want to live in.
If you want – and what decent person wouldn't? – to live with the best Enlightenment values, live free and tolerant and committed to knowledge and education and reason, then you must speak up and let your voices be heard.
This is why I welcome this blog so wholeheartedly. You will shape our society’s future, and it is exhilarating to see you preparing to do so.
All good wishes
Richard Dawkins
Thursday, 3 December 2009
Suggested Writing For Readers
As promised, here is the link to the 'Atheism is the new fundamentalism debate', as reviewed by myself in November. As Andy Armitage pointed out in the comments section, the title was pretty unfortunate and probably the product of a Christian 'title-chooser'. Nonetheless, the debate is highly recommended. Dawkins in particular stands out (and that's not me being biased either).
Remember, we need submissions! To try and encourage more entries, we've come up with four essay titles we suggest our readers write about. They will be included on our sidebar and new titles will be added as old ones are posted.
Remember, we need submissions! To try and encourage more entries, we've come up with four essay titles we suggest our readers write about. They will be included on our sidebar and new titles will be added as old ones are posted.
- America is one of the most fervent Christian nations in the world. Why has the United States failed to live up to its original secular values?
- 2009 marked the bicentennial of Darwin’s birth and the sesquicentennial of the publication of The Origin of Species . What is the status of ‘evolution’ like in the public sphere as the year draws to a close?
- The Rationalist Association run a Christmas event for non-believers, attended by famous authors and comedians. Is it ok or right for non-theists to continue celebrating what were once deeply religious festivals?
- Why, in the 21st century, after much scientific and technological development, is religion not dwindling as a remnant of our history?
These are just suggested titles. Feel free to alter them or ignore them. And don't forget that book reviews and news pieces are also welcome. Sent them all in to this address.
Wednesday, 2 December 2009
Nanotechnology - The World Of Tomorrow
Something slightly different today: a minor curveball. The topic of Nanotechnology looms large over the future of our species. Due to its all-encompassing and scientific nature, it seemed just about appropriate enough to publish on a blog such as this. The piece is adapted from multiple speeches written by myself and fellow Young Freethought editor Paul McClean. We both hope you read it with fascination and care. It leaves plenty of room for a good follow-up discussion. In particular, an issue I've purposefully ommited is the impact on religious belief of such technology. Anyway, please read and discuss.
Imagine a world, where there was no such thing as illness, a world where you could create almost anything that took your fancy at the touch of a button, a world where space travel was for everyone, where buildings never collapsed and bridges never fell. Welcome to the world of nanotechnology.
Of course, at a first glance, most of this seems to be precious little but science fiction – a collection of mankind’s greatest wishes, the folly of fantasists and naive utopians gathered and pasted together in a manifesto for the delusional. Yet this is not science fiction; sooner than you might think, this will be science fact. Nanotechnology, as I’m sure you’re aware, is the science of the small; the very small. An average human hair, for example, is 90,000 nanometres across. Of course, objects this small behave very differently to how we would expect them to, based on our everyday, Newtonian experiences. A very simple example, in recipie-like fashion, is as follows: take silicon; a dull, grey and dreary looking material. Take a nano-sized piece of the element using a ‘nano-ice-cream scooper’, and you will find it glows blue. Take a slightly larger size, and it glows red; simply due to the change in size. This is just one visual example of quantum mechanical 'weirdness'; which nanotechnology exploits, in turn exposing ‘a conflict between reality and your feeling of what reality "ought to be"’ As Richard Feynman put it. However nanotechnology allows us to venture into far more intriguing possibilities than simply that of changing the colour of metals.
Try hard, very hard if you will, to conceive of a material hundreds of times stronger than steel, yet one thousand times thinner than each hair on your head. For one, I just can’t quite do it. But it might startle you to know as it first did me, we have already produced such a material: the carbon nanotube – simply a nano-sized cylinder of carbon molecules, which just so happens to be the strongest material known to humankind. Constructing bridges and tower blocks out of nanotubes would make them just too strong to fall in most earthquakes and floods. In fact, you could replace all the steel in New York’s Brooklyn Bridge with carbon nanotube cylinders merely a few nanometres across.
Yet the greatest technological prospect is to be found in space exploration. The problem with today’s space travel is cost. A rocket uses roughly 90% of its highly expensive fuel in the first moments after takeoff due to gravity on Earth. But what if we could produce a lift, of sorts, to mechanically hoist the rocket up the first three thousnad or so metres and then on into space? This easily laughable and simply incredulous idea was first proposed by Konstantin Tsiolkovsky. The downfall then, as until recently, was that as soon as any 'space elevator' is erected, the strength of the Earth’s centripetal force immediately snaps it: confirming the common wisdom that the whole idea was a waste of human cortex. But, in case you didn’t see it coming, carbon nanotubes are strong enough to withstand this centripetal force. The idea was first taken seriously by NASA in the nineties and now creators of the first viable working model for a space elevator will receive a handsome cash sum in a prize sponsered by the agency that put man on the moon.
That first landing was just over forty years ago now. Yet, in reality, the expected ‘giant leap’ in space exploration envisaged since then has been nonexistent. Nanotechnology has the power to reenergise space travel, bringing down costs by a factor of one hundred. In theory it would be possible to send every human on this planet up into space, to look at their home from the greatest distance commonly feaseable. Some have talked of ‘conscience-raising’. I cannot imagine a better method than actually raising ourselves above our home and gazing down on it in all its all too human glory. We might go some way to realising the sentiments of the Pale Blue Dot. Michio Kaku, great scientist and futurist, even suggests a period of peace and stability following on from such an achievement.
So, if nanotechnology can change the way society views itself, there is surely very little it cannot do. If this space elevator is made of a material we humans have made, what if we could use nanotechnology to create materials itself? Nanotechnology does in fact have the power to manipulate individual atoms. If, therefore, atoms are the building blocks of everything we see in our world, then there is a possibility of using nanotechnology to create anything molecularly stable – be it a chair or a potato. Fast forward one hndred years, and it is possible that in every home around the world, there may be a box the size of a microwave, which can create almost anything with the twisting of knobs and the touch of a button. Starvation may become a horror of the past. One replicator per desperately unfortunate community and the extinction of hunger may be near
Capitalist economic systems and their social superstructures cannot remain unaffected by this result of engineering endeavour. If my replicator could fashion anything, industry as we know it would be ruined -with nothing to replace the millions without a job. The principle of money would become flawed as people simply feed a block of atoms into their ‘personal fabricator’ and receive a lump of coal, a nourishing meal or a handful of diamonds. Society would become incredibly unstable, and, working on the basic human attribute of greed, wars would surely break out. It just so happens that our own brilliance may well prove to be the downfall of our society.
The final possibility of nanotechnology I wish to look at is that of medicine. The current greatest dilemma in medicine is the treatment of illnesses and diseases which infect the cell internally. Current antiviral treatments do little else other than prevent the spread of the disease from one cell to another – they do not kill the infection. Nanotechnology once again comes to the rescue, as it is possible for nanobots, that is, nano robots, to enter your body, seek out the cancerous or infected cell, and destroy it. Effectively, there will be no such thing as illness ever again. This is not a hope for the future; this is happening now, albeit in a different form. In The Times on the 5th November, an article described how, next year, human trials of a ‘nano-weapon’ against prostate cancer begin. The researchers behind the treatment believe it will eliminate the need for immunosuppressant drugs and chemotherapy. They claim the ‘drug’ has virtually no side effects and will be on the global market within five years. The most incredible fact? The treatment, though currently applied to prostate cancer, can be altered to eliminate any form of cancer that existent. Now consider that on in three people will contract cancer in their lives. I wonder for how long that infamous statistic will hold true. Whilst nanobots may still be a long way off, nanotechnology and medicine are already merging successfully.
Catastrophic flipsides are inevitable with such a powerful tool. Suppose this or that nanobot with 'nano-lasers' or some other barely believable whimsy, is programmed to kill a virus. Bu then it proceeds to malfunction and self replicates (the property of self-replication, it is envisaged, will occur through a kind of chemi-robotic contamination on contact). Suddenly, a group of nanobots programmed to seek out and kill harmful cells would instead seek out the healthy ones. Death for the host is certain. But he greatest worry is surely that of military use. If nanobots can be programmed to cure people, there is an equally likely chance they could be used to kill people outright. If the military of any nation on Earth were to programme nanobots for use in a war, the result would be a monster greater than the atom-bomb. A future Oppenheimer might well find themselves repeating the same phrase as he did from the Bhagavad-Gita – ‘Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds’. A current major investor in nanotechnology? The U.S Military. 30% of the DoD budget goes straight to it.
Combining these two problems together, however, creates a situation potentially so catastrophic, that it provoked Prince Charles to demand that research into nanotechnology should be heavily regulated. If nanobots used in the military malfunction and self replicate, then instead of being programmed with instructions, ‘kill the French’, they, hypothetically could become programmed with, ‘kill everything’. The prophesized result is an eschatological scenario known as Grey Goo. That is, these robots will take over the world and reduce the Earth to nothing but a mass of goo. Once again, humankind would be undone by its very own brilliance.
Of course, all of this, if we’re honest, seems completely fictitious. Yet rewind a few centuries, and the idea of an airplane, a desk light, or a computer would have seemed utterly ridiculous too. And in fact, nanotechnology, despite being the unspoken buzz word of the decade, is not a completely new phenomenon. Stain glass windows have been around since the medieval period, and these were created by heating and cooling nano-sized particles so as to achieve their appreciable (even by atheists) myriad colours.
As we have seen, there are great problems which we must face if we wish to live in a world of nanotechnology. And yet, despite all this, it is my own view that Nanotechnology must become a part of our future if we wish to fulfil our own relentless inquiring nature of intrepid discovery. A rather crude yet apt analogy I like to use is that of the first caveman (or woman – for rhetoric's sake, I’ll stick with ‘man’). He is sitting in his cave, as the cold winter draws in, huddled against the fur of some woolly mammoth. And then he discovers fire. The fire brings him warmth and light and a place to cook food. Not that he knows it, but it also kills nearby bacteria and pathogens that could cause him and his family grave illness. He doesn’t know how lucky he is. But, simultaneously the fire can burn him and in a less than attentive moment of Palaeolithic daydreaming, he could well carelessly severerly scorch his cavernous home. Yet this new found ‘technology’ gives him the building blocks for further life, and he goes on to develop, and fulfil his hominid capabilities. Nanotechnology is like the fire: unchartered territory for us. Yet I feel we must not shy away from this scientific breakthrough. Whilst trying as best we can to be aware of the consequences we should utilise the benefits – benefits for all humanity, indiscriminate of any fictitious racial or religious boundary. In doing so, we will expand our horizons and see the Earth in a completely new manner. We must step out of our cave, and boldly enter the world of the future; the world of nanotechnology.
Imagine a world, where there was no such thing as illness, a world where you could create almost anything that took your fancy at the touch of a button, a world where space travel was for everyone, where buildings never collapsed and bridges never fell. Welcome to the world of nanotechnology.
Of course, at a first glance, most of this seems to be precious little but science fiction – a collection of mankind’s greatest wishes, the folly of fantasists and naive utopians gathered and pasted together in a manifesto for the delusional. Yet this is not science fiction; sooner than you might think, this will be science fact. Nanotechnology, as I’m sure you’re aware, is the science of the small; the very small. An average human hair, for example, is 90,000 nanometres across. Of course, objects this small behave very differently to how we would expect them to, based on our everyday, Newtonian experiences. A very simple example, in recipie-like fashion, is as follows: take silicon; a dull, grey and dreary looking material. Take a nano-sized piece of the element using a ‘nano-ice-cream scooper’, and you will find it glows blue. Take a slightly larger size, and it glows red; simply due to the change in size. This is just one visual example of quantum mechanical 'weirdness'; which nanotechnology exploits, in turn exposing ‘a conflict between reality and your feeling of what reality "ought to be"’ As Richard Feynman put it. However nanotechnology allows us to venture into far more intriguing possibilities than simply that of changing the colour of metals.
Try hard, very hard if you will, to conceive of a material hundreds of times stronger than steel, yet one thousand times thinner than each hair on your head. For one, I just can’t quite do it. But it might startle you to know as it first did me, we have already produced such a material: the carbon nanotube – simply a nano-sized cylinder of carbon molecules, which just so happens to be the strongest material known to humankind. Constructing bridges and tower blocks out of nanotubes would make them just too strong to fall in most earthquakes and floods. In fact, you could replace all the steel in New York’s Brooklyn Bridge with carbon nanotube cylinders merely a few nanometres across.
Yet the greatest technological prospect is to be found in space exploration. The problem with today’s space travel is cost. A rocket uses roughly 90% of its highly expensive fuel in the first moments after takeoff due to gravity on Earth. But what if we could produce a lift, of sorts, to mechanically hoist the rocket up the first three thousnad or so metres and then on into space? This easily laughable and simply incredulous idea was first proposed by Konstantin Tsiolkovsky. The downfall then, as until recently, was that as soon as any 'space elevator' is erected, the strength of the Earth’s centripetal force immediately snaps it: confirming the common wisdom that the whole idea was a waste of human cortex. But, in case you didn’t see it coming, carbon nanotubes are strong enough to withstand this centripetal force. The idea was first taken seriously by NASA in the nineties and now creators of the first viable working model for a space elevator will receive a handsome cash sum in a prize sponsered by the agency that put man on the moon.
That first landing was just over forty years ago now. Yet, in reality, the expected ‘giant leap’ in space exploration envisaged since then has been nonexistent. Nanotechnology has the power to reenergise space travel, bringing down costs by a factor of one hundred. In theory it would be possible to send every human on this planet up into space, to look at their home from the greatest distance commonly feaseable. Some have talked of ‘conscience-raising’. I cannot imagine a better method than actually raising ourselves above our home and gazing down on it in all its all too human glory. We might go some way to realising the sentiments of the Pale Blue Dot. Michio Kaku, great scientist and futurist, even suggests a period of peace and stability following on from such an achievement.
So, if nanotechnology can change the way society views itself, there is surely very little it cannot do. If this space elevator is made of a material we humans have made, what if we could use nanotechnology to create materials itself? Nanotechnology does in fact have the power to manipulate individual atoms. If, therefore, atoms are the building blocks of everything we see in our world, then there is a possibility of using nanotechnology to create anything molecularly stable – be it a chair or a potato. Fast forward one hndred years, and it is possible that in every home around the world, there may be a box the size of a microwave, which can create almost anything with the twisting of knobs and the touch of a button. Starvation may become a horror of the past. One replicator per desperately unfortunate community and the extinction of hunger may be near
Capitalist economic systems and their social superstructures cannot remain unaffected by this result of engineering endeavour. If my replicator could fashion anything, industry as we know it would be ruined -with nothing to replace the millions without a job. The principle of money would become flawed as people simply feed a block of atoms into their ‘personal fabricator’ and receive a lump of coal, a nourishing meal or a handful of diamonds. Society would become incredibly unstable, and, working on the basic human attribute of greed, wars would surely break out. It just so happens that our own brilliance may well prove to be the downfall of our society.
The final possibility of nanotechnology I wish to look at is that of medicine. The current greatest dilemma in medicine is the treatment of illnesses and diseases which infect the cell internally. Current antiviral treatments do little else other than prevent the spread of the disease from one cell to another – they do not kill the infection. Nanotechnology once again comes to the rescue, as it is possible for nanobots, that is, nano robots, to enter your body, seek out the cancerous or infected cell, and destroy it. Effectively, there will be no such thing as illness ever again. This is not a hope for the future; this is happening now, albeit in a different form. In The Times on the 5th November, an article described how, next year, human trials of a ‘nano-weapon’ against prostate cancer begin. The researchers behind the treatment believe it will eliminate the need for immunosuppressant drugs and chemotherapy. They claim the ‘drug’ has virtually no side effects and will be on the global market within five years. The most incredible fact? The treatment, though currently applied to prostate cancer, can be altered to eliminate any form of cancer that existent. Now consider that on in three people will contract cancer in their lives. I wonder for how long that infamous statistic will hold true. Whilst nanobots may still be a long way off, nanotechnology and medicine are already merging successfully.
Catastrophic flipsides are inevitable with such a powerful tool. Suppose this or that nanobot with 'nano-lasers' or some other barely believable whimsy, is programmed to kill a virus. Bu then it proceeds to malfunction and self replicates (the property of self-replication, it is envisaged, will occur through a kind of chemi-robotic contamination on contact). Suddenly, a group of nanobots programmed to seek out and kill harmful cells would instead seek out the healthy ones. Death for the host is certain. But he greatest worry is surely that of military use. If nanobots can be programmed to cure people, there is an equally likely chance they could be used to kill people outright. If the military of any nation on Earth were to programme nanobots for use in a war, the result would be a monster greater than the atom-bomb. A future Oppenheimer might well find themselves repeating the same phrase as he did from the Bhagavad-Gita – ‘Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds’. A current major investor in nanotechnology? The U.S Military. 30% of the DoD budget goes straight to it.
Combining these two problems together, however, creates a situation potentially so catastrophic, that it provoked Prince Charles to demand that research into nanotechnology should be heavily regulated. If nanobots used in the military malfunction and self replicate, then instead of being programmed with instructions, ‘kill the French’, they, hypothetically could become programmed with, ‘kill everything’. The prophesized result is an eschatological scenario known as Grey Goo. That is, these robots will take over the world and reduce the Earth to nothing but a mass of goo. Once again, humankind would be undone by its very own brilliance.
Of course, all of this, if we’re honest, seems completely fictitious. Yet rewind a few centuries, and the idea of an airplane, a desk light, or a computer would have seemed utterly ridiculous too. And in fact, nanotechnology, despite being the unspoken buzz word of the decade, is not a completely new phenomenon. Stain glass windows have been around since the medieval period, and these were created by heating and cooling nano-sized particles so as to achieve their appreciable (even by atheists) myriad colours.
As we have seen, there are great problems which we must face if we wish to live in a world of nanotechnology. And yet, despite all this, it is my own view that Nanotechnology must become a part of our future if we wish to fulfil our own relentless inquiring nature of intrepid discovery. A rather crude yet apt analogy I like to use is that of the first caveman (or woman – for rhetoric's sake, I’ll stick with ‘man’). He is sitting in his cave, as the cold winter draws in, huddled against the fur of some woolly mammoth. And then he discovers fire. The fire brings him warmth and light and a place to cook food. Not that he knows it, but it also kills nearby bacteria and pathogens that could cause him and his family grave illness. He doesn’t know how lucky he is. But, simultaneously the fire can burn him and in a less than attentive moment of Palaeolithic daydreaming, he could well carelessly severerly scorch his cavernous home. Yet this new found ‘technology’ gives him the building blocks for further life, and he goes on to develop, and fulfil his hominid capabilities. Nanotechnology is like the fire: unchartered territory for us. Yet I feel we must not shy away from this scientific breakthrough. Whilst trying as best we can to be aware of the consequences we should utilise the benefits – benefits for all humanity, indiscriminate of any fictitious racial or religious boundary. In doing so, we will expand our horizons and see the Earth in a completely new manner. We must step out of our cave, and boldly enter the world of the future; the world of nanotechnology.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)