''The Evolution of Confusion'' by Dan Dennett, AAI 2009

''The Evolution of Confusion'' by Dan Dennett, AAI 2009, RDFRS, Josh Timonen - RichardDawkins.net

For a superb take-down of theology, watch this video of Dan Dennett at the Atheist Alliance International 2009 convention:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_9w8JougLQ



I concur with his characterisation of philosophical theology as "a pseudo-sophisticated mug's game" and "willful obscurity".

Theodicy, or idiocy?

Listening to a recent episode of Unbelievable? in which Andrew Wilson and Norman Bacrac discussed their occasionally coincident views of God, I was struck once again by how the subject of theology seems to have been invented purely as an attempt to reconcile the inconsistencies of god-belief. The fact that theologians appear to tie themselves in logical knots trying to show how an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent deity is somehow compatible and consistent with the physical universe as we perceive it, simply shows that they refuse to accept the most parsimonious explanation.

Theodicy, for example, is a real problem, but it's a problem that goes away entirely if you apply Occam's razor and accept that in all probability God doesn't exist.

For a relentless no-holds-barred take-down of theology, see this recent post from Chris Ray at Factonista:

Why skeptics do not, and should not, waste their time with academic theology | Factonista

Is it worth arguing with theologians?

Over at Daylight Atheism there's a discussion about original sin. This is one of those fascinatingly odd ideas of Christianity that defies logic, though it's endlessly debated by earnestly learned theologians. I piped up in the comments to the effect that I didn't see the point of the discussion, and was roundly rebutted. Such debates can be interesting in a "let's see how far we can get with this puzzle" kind of way, but I don't see how they could sway those taking part. People who are prepared to argue at length about these issues are probably already fairly entrenched in their views.

Maybe the idea is to say something like "OK, let's for the sake of argument assume that God exists, and explore the ramifications of that assumption." But in what way is pointing out the logical inconsistencies of those ramifications likely to lead theists to question the initial assumption?

Let's assume for the sake of argument that there are fairies at the bottom of my garden. What is the point of discussing what they eat in the winter or how long it takes to dry off the dew from their wings in the morning before they are able to fly? Can you really have a useful discussion with someone who believes they have rational answers to such questions?

My fear is that by conceding the initial assumption, albeit temporarily, we also concede the legitimacy of the subsequent arguments, when such legitimacy is clearly unwarranted.

I'm an equal-opportunity sceptic. My stance is that we should deal even-handedly with creationists, alt-med proponents, psychics ... and theologians. It was pointed out to me, however, that though the participants of such discussions are unlikely to be persuaded from their respective positions, it is likely that there are others observing the discussion, and therefore it's useful to pursue the arguments for the simple reason that many agnostics - and even firm believers - have come to doubt their previously unchallenged beliefs by hearing them questioned.

This fits with my established opinion that religious fundamentalists (creationists, for example) should be publicly challenged because it alerts the religious moderates that nonsense is being promulgated in their name. So in response to the question posed in the title of this post, I hereby revise my answer to "yes".

Thoughts on the Thunderf00t - Ray Comfort discussion

After some ignominious shenanigans concerning his (surely not serious) request for a $100,000 honorarium (payable to the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, no less), Ray Comfort took up Thunderf00t's offer of a recorded discussion. Here is the result - 90 minutes of YouTube video well worth watching.

http://www.youtube.com/p/762A731FA12BCB57

(via The Atheist Blogger, from whom I also nicked the playlist embed code)

Some random thoughts after viewing:

Ray Comfort doesn't understand evolution - this is clear from his failure to engage in the basic concepts. He says he doesn't believe evolution is true (elsewhere he repeatedly describes it as "a fairy tale for grownups"), but if he doesn't understand it he's attacking a straw man - whatever he thinks evolution is, rather than what it actually is.

Given what he's said (and published), this isn't surprising, but it raises an interesting parallel with his own reasons for believing in God. During his discussion with Thunderf00t he mentioned that there was much in the Bible that he didn't understand until he accepted Jesus Christ into his heart as his personal Saviour. Relative to this he's previously stated that the evidence for the existence of God is available to everyone - all they need to do is do as he did: open their hearts to the Lord.

Atheists who have honestly tried this route, without the promised revelation, are told they're obviously doing it wrong. This is a self-fulfilling/defeating prophecy - just like the mediaeval dunking stool used to test witches. Any suspected witch who uses her craft to survive the test is proven guilty and shall not be suffered to live. If she drowns she was clearly innocent - no powers, no witch, and she will be set free to live her life in peace, unmolested. Unfortunately she's already dead.

With most atheists the "you're doing it wrong!" excuse understandably won't wash - it's a "heads I win/tails you lose" kind of reasoning.

Ray's argument in this part of the discussion also seemed equivalent (though with less sophistication) to the reasons given by theologians who object to Richard Dawkins' refutation of "simplistic" theism. A theologian will claim (with suitable snootiness) that the religion Dawkins attacks is "not my religion", and will then expound on some abstruse and intensely personal - but most importantly incomprehensible - faith (usually with profligate redefinition of terms), to the extent that the only other person who could share it is God. PZ Myers satirised this style of theology in his Courtier's Reply.

One could argue, however, that atheistic objections to theology are similar to creationists' simplistic objections to evolution. We complain that the likes of Ray Comfort have no real grasp of the principles of evolution, though they decry it as fictional. Conversely, many a theologian has complained that Richard Dawkins has no real grasp of theology, while at the same time he decries the subject as vacuous.

Of course, there is a crucial difference between the two disciplines. Evolution (by random genetic mutation and natural selection) is documented science that makes predictions (such as what we should expect to find in the fossil record) and so far its principles have not been disproved. In fact, each new discovery whether in genetics, paleontology or any other evolution-related field, has further confirmed evolutionary theory, to the extent that it is as near to a scientific fact as the theory of gravity. Theology, on the other hand, appears to be entirely made up. Theologians of a particular creed may agree on a core set of theological principles, but these result from consensus only, and cannot be falsified. This would be all fine and dandy for literary criticism, but for telling us anything at all about the real world, or the people in it, it's useless.

UPDATE 2009-08-02: A good summary of the discussion here:
Angry Astronomer: Ray Comfort vs. Thunderf00t

Did Darwin Kill God?

Looking through some two-month-old notes I found something I scribbled in response to a BBC TV programme shown on March 31, "Did Darwin Kill God?" Part of the BBC's Darwin programming, it was presented by Conor Cunningham. This is what I wrote (copy-edited for a modicum of clarity):

A mess. Hardly surprising - Conor Cunningham describes himself as a philosopher and theologian. He claims that literal interpretation of the Bible is not mainstream, and never has been. The conflicting stories in Genesis (Adam and Eve created together vs. Adam, then Eve) are stories intended to deliver deeper truths, and should be read thus.

So what's stopping anyone interpreting the Bible as a story whose deeper truth is that God is a figment of human imagination?

Theology is made up. It's like a lesser form of literary criticism. At least literary critics acknowledge that what they're studying is fiction. How would you react to a long, in-depth critique of Harry Potter that started from the presumption that J. K. Rowling's stories were historical fact?

A couple of days later the programme came up for discussion on RD.net, to which I added the following comment:

This programme rang alarm bells as soon as Cunningham stated he was a philosopher and theologian. Maybe he's right about the historicity of the interpreted understanding of the Bible - I don't know enough about it to agree or disagree. But as all theologians do, he started his interpretation with the assumption that God exists. (He had to; without this assumption, all of theology crumbles to dust.)

To go a little further in interpreting the "apparently" contradictory stories in Genesis ("Adam and Eve" vs. "Adam, then Eve") - if these stories are not to be taken literally (which they can't be if they contradict each other), and instead are intended to be fables that reveal deeper truths, one might come to the conclusion that Adam and Eve never existed as real people.

Nor, then, did the talking snake exist, nor the fruit, nor the tree. Perhaps none of the characters portrayed in either story actually existed in the literal, or any, sense. An allegorical or metaphorical reading of Genesis, according to Cunningham's argument, does not require the reader to take any of it literally, including the existence of one other character in the stories - God.

Later in the same thread, user "lazarus" posted a link to the BBC message boards discussion of the programme, and the programme itself is apparently available via BitTorrent. Incidentally, I've aired my opinion of theology previously on this blog.

The myth of "explanatory power"

A few weeks ago I watched a BBC TV programme entitled "The Narnia Code" in which Dr. Michael Ward, a C. S. Lewis expert, expounded his theory that Lewis's Christian allegory series of children's books, The Chronicles of Narnia, contain disguised references to medieval cosmology. It was fascinating stuff, as far as it went, though blown out of all proportion to its somewhat peripheral literary significance. But Dr. Ward has a book to promote, so I don't blame him for opportunistic hyperbole.

The TV show is due to be repeated tomorrow (May 18) at 7:30 pm on BBC Four:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aPQmoyzXx8



Unfortunately the final ten minutes of the show goes unnecessarily god-cute, bringing on such dubious luminaries as John Polkinghorne, who beamingly mumbles some trite non sequiturs – in particular the irrelevant notion that the idea of God as Creator is more "explanatory" than the naturalistic model.

What, pray, does the idea of a creator-god explain? The naturalistic thesis attempts to propose mechanisms of how things happen (or happened), to suggest explanations in terms of scientific knowledge we already have, in an effort to further that knowledge. How does saying "Goddidit" explain anything? At all? Tell me, please – I really would like to know.

Polkinghorne and other god-bods often use the phrase "explanatory power" when contending that the god hypothesis is more useful than scientific uncertainty, but it's high time such vacuous buzz-wordology was challenged and sent packing. I've no objection, in philosophical terms, to people of faith holding to their idea of a first cause for the universe – I think there's no evidence for such a view, though I appreciate some people subscribe to it. But if anyone says such a view offers any kind of "explanatory power" my response will be, "give me an explanation."

Saying that for whatever reason we can't possibly understand the supreme transcendent complexity of God's act of creation does not offer even a scrap of "explanatory power", and theists should stop claiming it does.

The Theology of Embryology

This half-hour radio documentary presented by Ernie Rae aired 21 April 2008 on BBC Radio 4:

Beyond Belief Special: The Theology of Embryology

From the BBC website (http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/beyond_belief/):

Each week on the Sony Award winning series Beyond Belief, Ernie Rea is joined by three guests who discuss how their particular religious tradition affects their values and way of looking at the world, often revealing hidden and contradictory truths.

Ernie is joined by Professor David Jones from St Mary's University, Professor Mary Seller from King's College, London), and Omar Sultan Haque from Harvard Medical School.

The audio is available in the 'listen again' service (RealPlayer) at:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/realmedia/beyond_belief/beyond_20080421.ram


Download RealPlayer here

Some eminently sensible talk here, and some not so sensible. Beyond Belief is a religious programme, so the faith-based slant is to be expected.

The problem of faith: fundamentalism and theology

The majority of the godly are not fundamentalists. Nor are they esoteric theologians whose belief is so amorphous it can't be defined.

No, the majority of the godly are moderates whose faith is something they wear like an occasional accessory. It doesn't rule their lives, but it's comforting to have it there for times of need, or celebration, or rites of passage. This kind of faith is a quaint tradition that serves to identify groups and foster a sense of belonging. The tribal loyalty thus engendered should be commended, up to the point that it becomes unreasonable.

The point of unreasonableness is reached when the tribe seeks to impose its dogma on the rest of us. It doesn't happen often, because this particular tribe is more interested in the loyalty than the dogma.

It's not the moderates who are the problem (at least in the UK), but the two extremes - fundamentalism, and vacuous theology - which speak with disproportionately loud voices. The rantings of fundamentalists on the one hand - be they creationists, Islamic extremists or whatever - get far too much media attention simply because they shout loudest (it's the squeaky wheel that gets the grease). Theologians, on the other hand, are afforded way too much influence in British public life, to the extent of automatic membership of the House of Lords if they happen to be Anglican bishops.

I've no quarrel with the moderates, as long as they stay moderates and leave me alone. But unfortunately religious moderates who take their religion seriously tend to become less moderate, veering towards either fundamentalism or vacuous theology. Indeed 'taking religion seriously' pretty much requires a degree of extremism - a 'serious' religious belief cannot help having repercussions throughout every aspect of a person's life.

A cursory survey of religious moderates is likely to suggest that there isn't much of a problem at all. But it's the vast majority of moderates who constitute the umbrella of normality and harmlessness under which the fundamentalists and theologians shelter.

Fundamentalism should be challenged at every opportunity, not because such challenges have any chance of swaying dogmatic fundamentalists - they haven't - but because public challenging of fundamentalism highlights its absurdity and shows the moderates why they should remain moderate.

Theologians should also be challenged, because despite theology's lack of validity, theologians occupy influential positions in society, where what they have to say is afforded undeserved respect. Such challenges need to be direct and uncompromising. It's no good attacking a theologian on his home territory - theology is a cloudy, indistinct field of contemplation that isn't susceptible to rational discussion, and any attempt to meet it half way is likely to lead to confusion and frustration. Worse, it will appear to give a theological argument some basis as an intellectually valid standpoint, when it clearly has none. By 'direct challenge' I mean a challenge to the first principle on which all theological discussions appear to be based - that God exists. Without that premise, all of theology crumbles.

Theological wisdom: Rowan Williams on debt

It's been suggested[1] that theology isn't actually a subject at all. But if that's the case it has a huge advantage over many other disciplines: being qualified in theology gives you the authority to speak out on subjects that have nothing whatever to do with the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

On Friday's Today Programme, Dr. Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, spoke to John Humphrys about debt. The audio is available on the BBC's listen again service here.


Download RealPlayer here

The muddle-headed cleric was interviewed for about eight minutes in advance of a debate in the House of Lords. The essence (indeed the whole) of his thesis was "something must be done."

I've nothing against people having opinions, but when they appear on national media to speak on a particular topic, I expect them to have some established expertise, authority or at least relevant experience that will add to the debate. But just because Dr. Williams is a nice chap with a posh voice - that's not a good enough reason to put his views on the nation's premier morning news radio programme. If you listen to what he said in those eight minutes, you'll find he said nothing new or useful.

1. Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (London: Bantam Press, 2006), 57

Theological truth is too deep for the likes of us

From a week ago (this is a bit of 'catch up' to help initiate the new blog):



Thought for the Day for 17 May on BBC Radio 4 was another example of 'theology being too intellectually demanding for popular criticism.' The Rev. Dr. Giles Fraser, Vicar of Putney, starts off with a self-deprecating anecdote, but by the end of this abstruse three minutes and fifteen seconds it's clear that he reveres theology as the ultimate intellectual endeavour.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today3_20070517.ram
(Thought for the Day starts about 16'50" in.)


Download RealPlayer here, or read the transcript, from which the following is excerpted:

What about the sort of truth that's less about accuracy and more about the call to imagine more, to feel more, to think more, to love more. Faith, for me at least, is so much more about this order of truth, than the question of whether my opinions are merely correct.

He seems to be saying, "What about the sort of truth that...isn't true?"

Which is why I think the best theology is always pausing and stuttering, always not quite able to express itself, always mounting unsuccessful raids on the unspeakable.

Quite. I think I get it now: theology is about the kind of truth that transcends 'mere' correctness -- the kind of truth that doesn't actually have to be true. Fine, just don't expect to have a rational discussion about it any time soon. (I've got this pinhead here, and according to what I can see through my magnifying glass I'm an angel short....)