Absolute knowledge of God's existence

Would it not be possible for an omnipotent God to implant into someone's mind the certain knowledge that he exists?

If that were possible, and if it has happened, then there is - or was - at least one person who at some point in time has known with absolute certainty that God exists. I'm not talking about faith here; by absolute certainty I mean certainty of God's existence, plus the additional certainty that such knowledge is true. This is knowledge that doesn't require proof, or even evidence. It just is.

Would such knowledge qualify as "properly basic belief"? If so, and you come across someone who claims as much, and additionally claims to possess such knowledge, then there's absolutely no point in engaging them in debate about the truth or otherwise of their belief, because they know what they know, and rational argument will be futile. This person knows that God exists, and nothing will shake that knowledge because it is true knowledge.

To anyone else, however, such "knowledge" - whether true knowledge or not - is indistinguishable from delusion.

Brian Cox at TAM London

Last weekend I attended The Amaz!ng Meeting, London, put on by the James Randi Educational Foundation. This was the first TAM to be held beyond the shores of North America. It more than fulfilled my expectations and I had a great time. I'll post some of my impressions here, beginning with the first presentation.

It was a scheduling masterstroke to kick off TAM London with a lavishly illustrated presentation by Professor Brian Cox, who explained the purpose behind the Large Hadron Collider (and, incidentally, behind scientific research in general). He outlined the LHC's current state, and by way of a compressed but lucid lecture on cosmology and leading-edge particle physics he showed why this huge accelerator beneath the Swiss-French border is important. His elaboration of the problem that caused the LHC to be shut down shortly after it was commissioned was the clearest I've heard.

His main point was that while it's possible to theorise about scientific subjects, ultimately such theories have to be tested, and when it comes to particle physics, the only way of testing them is with something like the LHC. He also covered the media's misguided panic over the possibility of the LHC producing miniature black holes, listing some media quotes from a number of scientists - including himself: "Anyone who thinks the LHC will destroy the world is a twat."

In Brian Cox we are fortunate to have someone who not only knows his subject inside out, but is also able to communicate abstruse ideas with clarity, wit and passion. (It's no surprise that one of his scientific heroes is Carl Sagan.)

New episode of Skepticule posted

Skepticule-002-20091001 is now posted.

Subscribe now!

In an hour or so I shall be on my way to TAM London, so expect some TAM-related posts next week.

Burnee links for Saturday

A Tale of Two Atheists
An unexpected assessment of a recent (invited) clash of opinion in the Wall Street Journal. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, clearly realises the difference between someone who uses language to explicate, and someone who uses it to obfuscate.

Lord Falconer suggests Archbishop of Canterbury’s stance on assisted suicide lacks Christian compassion - Telegraph:

"Dr Williams issued a rare joint statement with the Chief Rabbi, Sir Jonathan Sacks, and the Archbishop of Westminster, the Most Rev Vincent Nichols, stating their opposition to any change in the law on assisted suicide before Lord Falconer’s failed amendment. They spoke of their fears that vulnerable people would feel under pressure to end their lives and relieve the burden on family if assisted suicide were decriminalised."

It seems to me that these religious leaders aren't against assisted suicide because of some pious concern about putting the vulnerable elderly under pressure - they're against it because suicide is a "sin".

St Therese of Lisieux: come out, atheists, and fight | Matthew Parris - Times Online
As someone who has a professional interest in these relics, or rather in the reliquary containing them (or rather, in the stand on which the reliquary sits in one particular Roman Catholic Cathedral), I too find the whole charade patently ridiculous. (I've not seen the actual stand itself, and the reported long queues mean I probably never will....)

Ways of Knowing : EvolutionBlog
Are there different kinds of truth? As with a lot of discussion, it helps if the participants are using terms in the same way.

Unscientific America: Mooney & Kirshenbaum reviewed in BMJ
The reaction to M+K's accommodationist tome has been overwhelmingly negative (among those whose opinions I value).

Greta Christina's Blog: How Dare You Atheists Make Your Case! Or, The Fisking of Armstrong, 123
More plain speaking from Greta Christina - which is particularly appropriate given that this is a critique of Karen Armstrong, who's writing appears to be deliberately geared to impede communication rather than facilitate it.

Andrew Sullivan’s mushy theodicy « Why Evolution Is True
Jerry Coyne cuts through the mush. Once more I'm reminded why I'm on the side of Coyne, PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins regarding "accommodationism".
(via Pharyngula)

New episode of Skepticule now available

Skepticule-001-20090920 is now posted.

Subscribe now!

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".

"Religion and the Web" - BBC Radio 4, 2009-07-20

Beyond Belief is a long-standing BBC Radio 4 series, hosted by Ernie Rea, dealing with the religious interface with the everyday. Back in July it covered the internet:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00lny4g

The audio is available on iPlayer:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00lny4g

The first half of this 28-minute radio programme consists of various pro and con arguments about internet social networks, which mostly come down to "The internet isn't real!" (and therefore of little use in relationships). In particular the seminarian from Colorado seems to take the view that the internet is no good because it wasn't mentioned in the Bible, quoting a verse from John that he interprets as valuing face-to-face communication over writing letters. (Er... tell that to St Paul?)

But he misses the point. The internet is not something wholly different and "evil", it is merely an extension of previous media and means of communication. As host of The Rev Up Review podcast I contacted many people in the United States by email, instant messaging and Skype - people I am unlikely to have contacted otherwise. They would have been effectively out of my reach here in Portsmouth, UK.

Were these relationships of any less value that face-to-face ones? Perhaps. But in 2007 I flew across the Atlantic to attend a convention, and I met them in person, face-to-face. So these particular "internet" relationships are now exactly equivalent to "real life" relationships. Without the internet, however, they would almost certainly never have existed.

Listeners beyond the reach of iPlayer can download the mp3 audio from RapidShare:
http://rapidshare.com/files/341818810/BeyondBelief_ReligionAndTheWeb_20090720.mp3