Should atheists talk about evil?

That depends. "Evil" could be said to be an exclusively religious term. To talk about good and evil is to talk in the same realm as that occupied by "sin" — which seems a much more religious term.

Some might make the case that talk of "morality" is also exclusively religious. Indeed many religionists scoff at atheistic moral pronouncements, claiming that atheists have no business talking about morality because they have no grounding for it. But such a view is itself not so much grounded as perilously perched atop one horn of the Euthypro dilemma: that what is morally good is whatever God decrees — and however arbitrary such a decree may be, nothing else really counts as "moral".

It should also be recognised that some religionists make no distinction between morality and absolute morality. They seem unable to grasp that there can be any morality that isn't absolute. As an atheist who occasionally engages in online debate and discussion, I've come across this religious blind-spot more than once. After explaining at length how I see morality — what it is, where it comes from and so on — I'm still asked to justify it on metaphysical, transcendental grounds.

I'm currently reading The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris. I'm about halfway through, but so far Harris has fairly comprehensively laid the groundwork for a thesis that the distinction between facts and values is not as clear cut as the philosopher David Hume would have us believe. Hume's contention that you can't derive an ought from an is sounds on the face of it to be reasonable, leading to the kind of demand for moral grounding mentioned above.

Harris makes a good case for knowledge of moral facts about the world without resort to metaphysics. We know what the difference is between a state of everything being as lovely as it possibly could be, and the state of everything being as horrible as it possibly could be. And crucially we know that one of these is good and the other is bad. We do not need a transcendental moral law-giver to tell us which is which. Spread out between these two extremes are a myriad states of relative well-being, and while it may be difficult and in some cases impossible in practice to tell exactly where on a hypothetical scale of well-being these states lie, there can be no doubt that such a determination is possible in principle.

From what I've read so far it's too early to draw definitive conclusions from Harris's moral exposition, but I'm looking forward to the rest of the book.

Karen James at TAM London 2010

The Beagle Project is one of those enterprises that's quite hard to categorise. Is it really an educational project, or should it be classified as a glorified publicity stunt? Sailing a replica of Captain Fitzroy's square-rigged Beagle along the same route the original took when Charles Darwin was five years aboard could be considered a relatively pointless exercise, especially when the cost (apparently some £3.3 million at 2007 prices) is taken into account.

This is not the only prospective replica sea-vessel currently touting for funds. There are people in Kentucky who want to build a "replica" of Noah's Ark. I don't know if they intend to fill it two by two with animals, but they'll have difficulty finding dinos and dodos.

So what's the difference between these two enterprises? Well, HMS Beagle actually existed. Darwin wrote a book, The Voyage of the Beagle, in which he documented the five years he spent as a sea-fairing "natural philosopher". In contrast to the Old Testament story of the Ark, Darwin's record is not only an eye-witness account, it is autobiography. The notes he made on his travels are available for free on the web. This is something that actually happened.

The proposed Ark, of course, is based on carefully excavated and meticulously documented archeological artefacts, from which a reasonably accurate replica of the actual vessel is to be reconstructed. No it isn't — it's based entirely on a story in a book that also tells of a talking snake.

So the difference between the Beagle and the Ark is that we know for certain that HMS Beagle actually existed, and all we know about the Ark is what is written in an unreliable and contradictory scripture that's so full of metaphor and scientific nonsense that it has to be treated as literature rather than historical record.

Now that we've got that out of the way, let's consider the merits of the Beagle Project. The idea is to marry the historical facts of Darwin's voyage and the discoveries he made, with a global educational enterprise illustrating evolution.

Dr Karen James is the Director of Science for the Beagle Project, and at TAM London she outlined the project's aims and benefits. These are also available on the project's website:

The 21st century voyage of the Beagle will inspire global audiences through unique public engagement and learning programmes, and original scientific research in evolutionary biology, biodiversity and climate change.

She will cross the North and South Atlantic, the Pacific and Indian Oceans, round both Cape Horn and the Cape of Good Hope. She will sail in her ancestor's wake, with international crews of young scientists and sailors aboard applying the tools of modern science to the work started by Darwin and Captain Fitzroy 170 years before. International friendships and scientific alliances will form, and people the world over will follow the voyage, adventure and science aboard through the Beagle's interactive website.

The replica ship won't be quite the same as the original:

She will be built of larch and oak planking on oak frames. Unlike the 1831 Beagle, her 2009[*] descendent will have diesel auxiliary engines, radar, GPS navigation, satellite communications and modern safety equipment. Her design will be approved by Germanischer Lloyds and she will be certified for Category A - unrestricted ocean sailing. The build will be carried out in Milford Haven, Pembrokeshire under the supervision of master shipwright Detlev Loell.

(*It appears the website could do with some updating.)

Modern biology — including modern medicine — is so thoroughly underpinned by evolutionary theory that without the theory we would be back to the days of cupping and blood-letting, or even the four humours and demonic possession. And yet, in America at least, about 40 percent of the general population do not accept evolution as a true scientific account of living organisms. This is a shocking state of affairs, and while the Beagle Project risks being accused of Disneyfying science, a desperate situation calls for desperate measures. If the Beagle Project stands a good chance of educating people about evolution in spite of a pervading culture of denialism, it needs to go ahead. For the sake of the scientific literacy of future generations, the Beagle Project should receive wholehearted support.

Burnee links for Thursday

The Blair Hitch Project | Politics | Vanity Fair
Christopher Hitchens gives his account of the clash.

Sarah Palin's Camp Says Depraved Liberals Blame Sarah Palin for Mass Murders
Is Palin is digging her own political grave? Let's hope so.

Dave, Andy, and Georgia and their unbelievable, ridiculous fable : Pharyngula
Ugh! Creationists.

The Importance of Critical Engagement | MandM
Some Christian teachers are prepared to engage with teenagers on a basis other than indoctrination.
(Via Patient and Persistant)

Tessera: Should you join a gym in January? No.
Sound and comforting (and realistic) advice.

Sadly ironic « Why Evolution Is True
Jerry Coyne on the Gabrielle Giffords shooting.

BBC News - Cases dropped against malaria homeopaths
This is a less than desirable result. People may have died because homeopaths recommended ineffective "medications" in lieu of vaccination.

How incorrect reports of Giffords’ death spread on Twitter - Lost Remote
Maybe we need different rules for different times. The internet changes everything.

Anonymity and the Dark Side of the Internet - NYTimes.com
Stanley Fish reviews The Offensive Internet by Nussbaum et al.

Salmaan Taseer, Aasia Bibi and Pakistan's struggle with extremism | World news | The Observer
Reading about what's happening in Pakistan it's hard to disagree with Christopher Hitchens that religion poisons everything. Here's a place where religion has infected the minds of ordinary people with what can only be described as evil.

Doctors criticise chief rabbi's edict against donor cards | World news | The Guardian
Who does he think he is — the Pope? Yet another case of a high priest thinking he knows things he clearly doesn't.

Bloggers' word choice bares their personality traits, study finds
Interesting. But to me though, it seems awfully lazy — and worse, depressing...

Into the Hands of Strangers « Choice in Dying
Read it.

Mary Warnock on Morality and Religion « Choice in Dying
Forthright and lucid post from Eric MacDonald on morality and government. The final paragraphs should be pasted onto the walls wherever laws are made.

Jesus and Mo
Disgusting! Write to the network!

Kicking the creationist ladder

Earlier today James Thomas posted an article on his posterous about a recent visit he made to the Natural History Museum, accompanied by a friend who happened to be an ardent creationist. James's article raises some important points about how we deal with creationists and why they appear to us to be so closed-minded to the evidence for evolution. You should go and read it. (Don't worry, I'll wait...)

James and I had a brief Twitter exchange about the issue he raises, which is that it doesn't help to characterise creationists as ignorant fools, because a sincerely held belief in a six-day creation only 6,000 years ago is fundamental to their faith. To accept that even one part of the biblical creation story is not a literal record of historical fact would undermine their whole belief system. This is why, as James points out, they will not accept the evidence for evolution even if presented with overwhelming masses of it, such as that found at the Natural History Museum.

But if an assault on creation "science" isn't going to work, that leaves only the fundamental beliefs themselves. My own understanding of creationism is that where there's conflict between what the Bible says and what science teaches us, creationists insist that the science must by definition be wrong. It matters not a jot that the science is backed up by rigorous research and incontrovertible evidence — creationists have to find some way of making it wrong because the alternative, that the Bible is wrong, is too shocking to contemplate.

So rather than reiterating the evidence for evolution and an old earth, should we instead be attempting to undermine belief in the inerrancy of the Bible? Such a course, I fear, is unlikely to win many friends in either camp. I can imagine the responses — "You've no right to interfere with people's faith. Let them believe what they want." Or, "How dare you attack us for simply stating our beliefs! This is typical New Atheist militancy!"

During our brief exchange today James suggested that "Maybe our job is to cushion the fall as well as kicking the ladder?" That's a nice metaphor but it's also a difficult strategy to get right. The problem — as anyone who's had a ladder kicked from under them would probably testify — is that the fall is really frightening. It's only after they've landed on the cushion do they discover they were going to be perfectly safe all along.

What conversion stories have in common

I've heard or read quite a few stories of religious people who have lost their faith. I'm also aware of (fewer) stories of atheists becoming religious. And though these could not be regarded as anything like a representative sample, they do appear to have certain common characteristics.

Religious people who give up their faith seem to do so because of nagging doubts that increase to the point when they can no longer, in all honesty, continue to lie to themselves.

The non-believers who become religious appear to do so as a result of some emotional experience. Not because of reason, or persuasion, but because of some susceptibility to an emotional appeal.

My reaction to the first set — the believers who lose their belief — is, "What took you so long?"

My reaction to the second — people who convert from non-belief to belief — is plain bewilderment. How can they be suddenly convinced of the existence of God when there is, as far as I can see, no justification for such a belief? (I appreciate that this could be my failing rather than theirs.)

I've examined and refuted to my own satisfaction all the "arguments for the existence of God" I've encountered (and I'm willing to consider others), but it's clear that while these arguments aren't convincing to me, neither are they the cause of belief in converts. Believers of all stripes may attempt to bolster their faith "after the fact" with these arguments, but I don't think the arguments play any part in conversion from non-belief in a deity to belief in a deity.

Religious converts have rarely become believers as a result of rational argument, so it's no surprise that only rarely can they be subsequently reasoned out of their faith.

An Atheist's Journey

Like many atheists, I used to be a Christian. At least, I called myself a Christian — it was how I was brought up. Not that I understood what being a Christian actually was. As a child I was told that there were things I wasn't meant to understand, and there were other things that would become clear to me as I grew older.

Prayer, for instance, was one of many things I had to take on faith. Prayer seemed to me like attempted telepathy — attempted, because it was always one way only, despite contrary depictions in the Bible, with its profusion of "And the Lord said unto..."

Although as a child I had no concrete evidence of the existence of God, I assumed this was because I was a child, and in the fullness of time God would make his presence known to me. As a teenager I expected God's presence to become apparent, either gradually or as a Damascene revelation.

It never happened. My puzzlement at the absence of revelation eventually gave way to relief as I realised that most of the hard problems of faith would disappear if I took on the proposition suggested by the lack of evidence: that the God of the Bible didn't exist. This was a revelation of sorts. Without a belief in God, the absurdities of religion no longer had to be resolved, and just faded into nothing. Suddenly the Universe made a whole lot more sense — and so I found I was an atheist.

At the time, the fact that the majority of the world's population was more or less religious didn't bother me. Clearly belief in supernatural agents is a hangover from ancient animism, and has helped the human race survive. (Tribes are much better at conquering other tribes, inventing things and creating cultural heritage if they're not preoccupied with the eternal verities — let the priests and theologians deal with all that stuff.)

There remained, however, one intractable problem, which meant that though by age 15 or so I self-identified as an atheist, I was not a vocal atheist. People could believe in a god if they wanted. I didn't, but I was nonetheless troubled by the notion that without God there is no moral authority.

Like many, for me it was the attack on the World Trade Center that transformed me from a godless but passive observer to an atheist prepared to defend my position. I had witnessed the destruction caused by the folly of delusion, and felt the need to stand up and be counted. I read Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion and discovered whose side I was on — when previously I'd hardly been aware there was a side.

As for moral authority, I came to understand that morality does not originate in scripture as I had once thought — which had caused me to subdue any atheistic declarations I might have been inclined to make — but from our innate human intuition. Our moral conscience has evolved with us as a human race, but only been distorted by scripture (indeed scripture contains much that is morally repugnant).

These days I'm happy to be counted as an "out" atheist, though I'm not evangelical. In my day-job I mix with religious people and see no reason to challenge them about their faith. It's only when wrong-headed beliefs have an adverse impact on the well-being of innocents that I'm likely to become vocal. In my own time, however, I'm willing to engage in discussions about faith, especially online. I may have little chance of persuading a hardcore fundamentalist out of his or her irrational beliefs, but you never know who's listening.

Burnee links for Sunday

Science, Reason and Critical Thinking: Hello, I'm an Atheist: Awe
...and I'm an RC. (Actually I'm not, but you knew that.)

Why Are Believers So Hostile Toward Atheists? | Belief | AlterNet
Greta Christina ponders hostility.

A successful campaign against a new ‘faith’ school | HumanistLife
Whether or not the South West London Humanists' campaign was instrumental in the decision (and it may not have been), this is a fine example of consciousness-raising and engagement.

The time machine | The Rather Friendly Skeptic
There are stories of true believers becoming skeptics through exposure to "the skeptical movement" but this is clearly a case of someone finding their own way out of the woo. (Shame Hayley won't be bringing the time machine to QED though...)

Nox’s Wall of Text, Part 1. | Unreasonable Faith
Custador quotes at length from the Unreasonable Faith forum on the subject of the truth of the Bible (with more to come).

Taxonomy of the Logical Fallacies
Neat!
(Via Philosophy Bites Daily)