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.

10 Commandments: A Worrying Moral Code

Religion, in all its undeserved hubris, has, through some form of unconscious consensus, been deemed to provide a praiseworthy blueprint for a meaningful existence. Quite how this has happened I find fascinating and lamentable. Even those who ‘have no faith themselves’ seem quite willing to accept this. The argument that brash atheism ‘pulls the rug’ of meaning from the faithful’s feet is a poor metaphor. In reality, the confrontation is much more violent, forcing the theist to ask “what now?”

But this existential disembowelment is really a good thing. It’s more of a necessary realisation of the individual’s tainted conscience. Tainted because the ‘meaning’ provided by faith is really nothing but that of subjugation, obedience and absolute rule. In no way are the faithful free. Freedom should be regarded as one of the upmost priorities of every decent being. Ensuring freedom of movement, thought and expression for others, if not the foremost concern of a government, must soon become so if they wish to remain in power. Liberty, as Mill wisely dictated, consists largely in doing whatever you like, as long as you bring no harm to others, and though flawed, this dictum serves as a just motivation for civilised conduct.

I struggle to conclusively find that God works on such Enlightened values. That tyrant of the Old Testament supposedly granted us ten universal laws by which we can all live. (There are in fact countless commandments in Exodus, all of which are either blindingly obvious without celestial sanction, or abhorrent to all but the most omnipotent dictator.) It is too rarely that they are thoroughly examined. An exegesis should be welcomed.

The passage in question is Exodus 20, and it begins with a helpful reminder: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.” I’m not sure if the Israelites needed reminding of this ‘fact’, yet the God who will later command us to be humble is entitled to a little self-promotion. Incidentally, it is important not to forget the manner in which He freed His people. As a supposedly omnipotent being, He could have, of course, merely changed the workings of the pharaohs mind. Not satisfied with a simple solution (and one that does not make good mythology), He employed His unlimited creative powers to divine ten vindictive and frankly bizarre ‘warnings’ to the pharaoh. They are (in no particular order) plagues of flies, locus and frogs, a prelude to the devisive dogma of transubstantiation whereby the waters of the country turned to blood, livestock were diseased (Yahweh, knowing of the germ theory, neglected to deem this a viral plague, presumably not to disrupt the course of history, allowing Pasteur to take his well-deserved credit), irremovable and painful boils, my personal favourite; hail mixed with fire, and lastly, mass infanticide. The final abhorrent act was moderated; only Egyptian children were massacred. The Jews painted crosses of lamb’s blood on their doors to remind the infallible creator of their devotion and unmitigated terror.

All this and we are not yet at the first of the ten commandments. Luckily, they can be grouped together. Christopher Hitchens has, on many occasions, has performed this deed for us. The first four are all the demands of an egomaniac. One who forces you to love Him. “You shall have no other Gods before me” is, notably, not a denial of polytheism, but merely a demand that good Jews may only believe in Yahweh. And once again, He reminds His followers of the upmost importance of this commandment when they gather their golden possessions so that Aaron can melt them down to form a Golden Calf. This baffling oddity of the people’s need to worship anything during Moses’ forty day exile is indeed strange. Though the entire story is likely a fabrication (no evidence has ever been found of the Israelites nomadic existence in the Sinai), the sheer fact that it must have been credulous to its illiterate bronze age audience should inform us of the circumstances under which the document was crafted. In due course, God is (for once) consistent with His teachings and punishes such sins. Those who had fashioned the idol where ignorant of the rank of this sin, but ignorance was no defence. God, initially bent on more genocide, is convinced by Moses not to resort to such extreme measures. Instead Moses’ henchmen slay 3000 men and God inflicts a further plague upon the population.

The next group of commandments is altogether more agreeable. Honour your father and your mother, do not murder, commit adultery, steal or give false testimony, are all far less controversial. Neither are they unique to the Abrahamic faiths, or ‘faith’ in general. They cannot be laid claim to by the religious. Atheists, despite popular belief, are not all murders, rapists, thieves and liars. Yahweh, hypocrite that He is, can lay claim to many of these characteristics.

The last commandment is unique, and should be singled out.

You shall not covet your neighbour’s house. You shall not covet your neighbour’s wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour.

A misogynistic, chauvinistic, totalitarian and petty passage. The only ‘neighbour’ worth note is male (and presumably also Jewish), since women are ranked alongside property and livestock: ‘anything that belongs to your neighbour’.

But more worryingly and importantly, this is the earliest mention I have ever found of a thought crime. George Orwell excellently identified this as a key component of any totalitarian regime. It is not the act of coveting my neighbour’s possessions that I can be condemned for, but the mere thought of it. Such a commandment is both unjust and impossible. In the supposedly ‘fallen’ world that Christianity teaches us we are living in, such a high moral demand comes from a God who is supremely sadistic. There will be many Christians who can offer sophisticated and slippery ways around this problem. Luckily for the rest of us, we are free to avoid such nonsensical fairyology and appreciate the real majesty of our moral universe – free from any religious dogma of this kind.

Faraday Lecture Given By Dawkins' Successor

Twitter has reliably informed me that Marcus du Sautoy will be giving the Michael Faraday lecture at the Royal Society this evening at 17:30 – short notice I know. Luckily, the lecture will be broadcast live over the internet on the Royal Society’s TV player. Their website states:

Artists are constantly on the hunt for interesting new structures to frame their creative process. From composers to painters, writers to choreographers, the mathematician’s palette of shapes, patterns and numbers has proved a powerful inspiration. Often subconsciously artists are drawn to the same structures that fascinate mathematicians. Through the work of artists like Borges and Dali, Messiaen and Laban, Professor du Sautoy will explore the hidden mathematical ideas that underpin their creative output but will also reveal that the work of the mathematician is sometimes no less driven by strong aesthetic values.

Sounds like it will be a good one. Du Sautoy previously presented an enthralling 4 part series on BBC 4 about the history of mathematics. He took over Richard Dawkins' post at Oxford after he retired as the Charles Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science. I’m sure tonight’s lecture won’t disappoint. I’ll certainly be watching!

Tomorrow, back to some articles with an examination of the 10 commandments.

Think Week: 22nd - 28th February

Richy Thompson talks about an event taking place this month from 22nd - 28th. Think Week is being run by Oxford University students and local townspeople.

Hi, I'm Richy Thompson, a fourth year undergraduate at Oxford University and also coordinator of Oxford Think Week, a series of 15 high profile events occurring from the 22nd to the 28th February. There are 5 non-theistic societies in Oxford (which for a city this size, must be some kind of record!) - these are the Oxford Atheist Society, Oxford Secular Society, Oxford Humanists, Oxford Sea of Faith and Oxford Skeptics in the Pub. The first two of these are University societies, and the last three are town societies. Think Week has been organised jointly by these 5 societies, and the events are free for everyone to come along to. There'll be something happening every lunch and evening, with events being largely speaker-oriented; guests include the philosopher Stephen Law, the scientist Peter Atkins, BHA CEO Andrew Copson, anti-Sharia campaigner Maryam Namazie, philosopher Julian Baggini, Camp Quest UK Director Samantha Stein and secular MP Evan Harris. Full details of all happenings can be seen on the Events page of the website.

Additionally, as if we weren't organising enough already, the annual conference of the National Federation of Atheist, Humanist and Secular Student Societies (AHS) will be occurring on the 27th, bringing together students from societies across the UK. Last year's conference in London also served as the press launch of the AHS, receiving widespread coverage. This year will be a more internal affair, and lots of training meetings will be happening, but there will be public bits, tying into Think Week; a sort of irreligious fair will take place at lunch (stalls confirmed so far are Camp Quest UK, New Humanist Magazine, Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain, British Humanist Association, an AHS campaigns stall and an AHS regional stall), and the day will conclude with a performance from the BHA Choir!

The idea for the week started with the Oxford Atheist Society, and was inspired by similar weeks that have been put on by other student societies up and down the country (typically under the names Awareness Week or Rationalist Week). We feel that this is a bit different though, firstly in terms of being more speaker-focussed, and secondly, it is not just being organised by one student group, but is being organised by 5 different groups, with the goal being to bring in an audience from the wider area, not just from the University. We're also promoting the week heavily in Oxford's other University, Oxford Brookes. We feel that this means what we're doing is without precedent.

The aim of the week will be to expose the type of discussion and debate that the various participating societies offer to a wider audience and hence raise the profile of the issues involved. This sets it apart from the annual Oxford Inter-Collegiate CU week (and similar weeks at other Universities, no doubt), which is explicitly a proselytizing event, and we won't be covering base questions like "Does God exist?" but instead be providing events in a similar vein to those we provide during the rest of the year ("so we think God doesn't exist... now what?"). The events will be intended to make people think about things they probably haven't thought about before - hence the name.

One big gain from the week that has occurred already. Levels of cooperation now happening between the different societies in Oxford is massive. Beforehand we had 5 societies who promoted each other's events but didn't really interact a whole lot more than that. Now we all know each other really well, with a wider community being established in the place of a number of smaller ones. Hopefully many more joint events will follow on from the week. It'd be great if similar steps could be taken in other University towns, should the right societies exist! The more united our local groups are, the more enthusiastic our audience becomes for what we are offering.

Organising this week has been a huge undertaking (I know my degree is suffering a bit!), but equally it has been great fun. Time will tell as to whether we still feel it's worth it after we come out the other side!

To reiterate, Think Week will be taking place from the 22nd to 28th February. If anybody reading this wants to come along to the week, please do so! We look forward to seeing you there.

Nope To Pope - A Reminder

Just a brief note from me about why any freethinker should take opposition to the actions of this Pope. His recent attacks on British equality legislation and accompanying visit to Britain planned in September remind us of this dangerous figure's presence. Of course he has a right to say what he likes and to visit this country, but all humans have the right to condemn him for his deeds. I was lucky enough to attend a debate last year hosted by Intelligence Squared, where two excellent speeches were made by Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry which I shall post here now. They talk of Ratzinger's appalling failings (the last video posted here, in particular, is shocking) as well as those of the Church throughout history. Feel free to watch the opponent’s speeches too, but take my advice and give Archbishop John Onaiyekan's, the first speaker, a miss. Don't forget to sign the petition asking the Pope to pick up the bill for his visit as opposed to the British taxpayer.

The Right To Offend

In the face of increasing evidence, reason and opposition, religionists nowadays often use that last ditch attempt to postpone a logical outcome: offence. Though infantile and irrelevant, it can often take centre stage in difficult dilemmas when it comes to discussing religion with friends and family for atheists. For those young ‘converts’ out there, I’m sure you’re aware of the difficulties of ‘coming out’. But even with friends who happen to be religious, a sudden confrontation can cause theory to crash headlong into practise.

The question I hope a young freethinker out there will answer is this: when discussing religion with friends and family, how far should you go to try and avoid causing offence? What about when talking to strangers about the subject? Typically this isn’t a problem on internet forums and blogs, but the non-virtual world is a different beast. I look forward to reading your fresh and original responses to this problem. Send them to youngfreethought@googlemail.com.

Nope To Pope

The Pope’s planned visit to Britain was recently accompanied with an attack on the UK’s new equality laws. He told a collection of British Bishops to resist the laws with “missionary zeal” as they violated “natural law”. The legislation is designed to prevent discrimination against gays and women in the workplace. Essentially, the laws are uncontroversial unless you maintain bigoted medieval superstitions.

According to the BBC, Ratzinger said "Yet, as you have rightly pointed out, the effect of some of the legislation designed to achieve this goal has been to impose unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs.”

Bear in mind that the beliefs in question would be abhorrent to anyone not blinded by religious dogma. Religions have demanded exemption from common law since secularism has been around. The law is reflection of that shifting ‘moral zeitgeist’. The fact the leader of an enormous faith is resisting it simply shows once more that Catholics are on the wrong side of history.

Andy Armitage over at the Pink Triangle blog has given the Ratzinger or ‘Ratzo’ what for and rallies bloggers to oppose the Pope’s statements. In his post entitled 'Enter the monster - but let's not make it easy for him' he writes:

I suspect websites and blogs will be ablaze between now and September, when it’s thought this insult to human rights, human dignity and all that is decent will be allowed to place his jackboots on our soil. All power to their keyboards. Let us send an unequivocal message to the Vatican and to our own pusillanimous leaders that this evil obscenity is not wanted here by anyone but misguided Catholics and other members of the Deluded Herd...

In the meantime, please sign this petition urging the Pope to pay for his own visit to UK, rather than the bill being picked up by the UK taxpayer.

Beethoven: Therefore, God

A frequent non-sequitur in debates about religion is the argument from beauty. It’s hard to construct the logic behind it, because, basically, there isn’t any. Its proponents rank it as some kind of necessary a priori self-evident truth about the nature of the universe. Without the jargon, this means they see it as so obvious as to not require any chain of reasoning establishing the logical links between the existence of beauty and the existence of a deity.

In a book once lent to me by a minister by Timothy Keller entitled The Reason For God, which I do not have to hand (nor do I recommend) I remember the author trying to convince us that we should not expect proofs of God’s existence, but merely “clues” that suggest his presence in the universe. Leaving this common and revealing caveat aside, Keller quotes Leonard Bernstein’s use of the word ‘heaven’ to describe the music of Beethoven. Last night, I even donned my classical music aficionado hat and headed off to see Daniel Barenboim perform and conduct my favourite piece of classical music – Beethoven’s 4th Piano Concerto. And the performance was, I admit, ‘heavenly’. .

Admittedly struggling to find a logical pathway from beauty to God, I shall turn to that marvel of 21st century idealism, Wikipedia, and its article on the argument from beauty. It seems a fairly written piece, and I’ll quote from it its outline of the ‘argument’:

1. There are compelling reasons for considering beauty to exist in a way that transcends its material manifestations.

2. According to materialism, nothing exists in a way that transcends its material manifestations.

3. According to classical theism, beauty is a quality of God and therefore exists in a way that transcends its material manifestation.

 4. Therefore, to the extent that premise (1) is accepted, theism is more plausible than materialism.


Points 2, 3 and 4 are relatively un-controversial, so discussion focuses on the premise (1).

And to once more prove this argument is not simply constructed by various atheist internet bloggers just to be swiftly demolished, the article quotes at length well-known scholar Richard Swinburne. He says “If we confine ourselves to the argument from the beauty of the inanimate and plant worlds, the argument surely works."

The Wikipedia formulation seems to be reasonable. Arguments of this form always state essentially the same thing: that beauty cannot be explained by naturalism, therefore it must be divinely inspired. To use Daniel Dennett’s terminology, this is a classic ‘skyhook’. The term ‘skyhook’ is a useful and interesting one put forward by the philosopher. He posits two kinds of explanations; ‘cranes’ are explanations built upon foundations of what we already know or can observe. ‘Skyhooks’ posit greater complexity in order to explain complex things.

Why we find beauty in the world is an interesting question, but one that will surely be answered by a suitable crane. Indeed, we can explain many types of beauty using evolution. Those that aren’t a direct result of our evolutionary history, likely still can be explained with reference to it. Our large mammalian brains are incredibly powerful tools capable of experiencing a wide range of, very human, phenomena.

According to the argument in question, beauty is a direct result of God’s existence, since His nature is beautiful. But surely, if He exists, all things that are the case are His doing? Thus, we might posit the ‘Argument from Ugliness’ as an antidote to the argument from beauty. It is just as likely that ugliness “transcends its material manifestations” as beauty does. If we need an explanation for why things are beautiful and say it is because God’s nature is one of beauty, why not say God is ugly in order to explain ugly things? If you accept the argument from beauty, there is no good reason to reject the argument from ugliness. Both arguments are, of course, ridiculous.

It was during the last movement of the Beethoven concerto that Keller’s book came to mind. It struck me how easy it must be to a mind already predisposed to religious belief, to see beauty as something divinely ordained. Music is often held in such high regard in this sense because it ‘transcends humanity’. But I find Beethoven so beautiful precisely for the opposite reason. His majesty lies in his embrace of humanity – he pushes its creative faculties to the limit, in the processes fulfilling a noble aspect of what it means to be a human being. Beauty is a strictly human concept. That thought, in itself, is beautiful. God, once more, finds Himself surplus to requirement.