A Survey

I haven't updated for a while and I apologise (to myself, really, since at the moment I am fairly certain I am the only person reading this!). The reason for my absence has been part out of being so busy, part out of not having a lot to talk about. Whilst on YouTube I came across this video, which is basically "5 questions every intelligent atheist must answer". This is really just a passive, perhaps even vain, post. I just thought I'd get the ball rolling again by taking a little quiz and seeing where we get. You can watch the video at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTYe_V2hOZ4&feature=related

So, without further ado:

1.) Do atheists use "chance" in the same way that they accuse Christians of believing in the "God of the Gaps"?

For those who don't know, the "God of the Gaps" is a Richard Dawkins phrase (I believe) that effectively claims that we use God to bridge the gaps in our understanding (whatever Christians don't understand must be the will, power or plan of God and above us). Are we atheists doing the same with chance?

This is actually a good question, and ostensibly yes it's true. The author of the video is claiming that science takes anything it cannot explain (the example quoted being the origin of life) and, when the probability of it happening becomes ridiculously small, the scientists throw their hands in the air and say "well, it must have been chance!".

It is a conundrum scientists (and atheists) have yet to get around and perhaps it can be claimed that, to that extent, faith in chance is nothing more than a belief system, which I would partly agree with. But, chance is everywhere, and God possibly isn't. This may sound a rather crude explanation but it's true. People win the lottery, or get struck by lightning, or survive supposed terminal illnesses they'd have no "chance" of surviving. The odds of these happening are still much more favourable than, say, the origin of life. But what this proves is one very fundamental thing: chance is observable. That doesn't mean everything we can't explain is "chance", so to that extent it's not provable that chance is the reason behind these events, but it does prove one very key thing: chance exists.

The alternative to this is that God exists. The problem is, nothing can be explained by the presence of God that cannot be explained by the presence of chance. Rationally then (and, perhaps intelligently), we must say that the likelihood of chance exceeds the likelihood of God. This is something of a phyrric victory for our author: yes, atheists turn to chance when nothing else can be further deduced. But, chance is an observable phenomena on a massive scale. God is only interpretable on a massive scale.

2.) Why should there be something instead of nothing?

Hmm, not entirely sure where to go with this one. It's like trying to paint water. This is quite a big question so you need to watch the video to understand my attempted answer.

This comes down to a massive divide in the way we think; the very essence of thought structure. It's not really a good question but an understandable one. To put it in a simple, grammatically dubious phrase: "Why is?". Why the universe? Why the hallmarks of intelligent design (incidentally there aren't any in my opinion or, indeed, in scientific record, but that isn't the scope of this question).

Let's turn this question on its head. We, as humans, have limitations. We see a sunset and think it's precious. We see life and think it almost divine in inspiration. We see physics and find order and rules and incredible structures of design. That is because we are built to see this way. We need to interface with every molecule we come into contact with, and our very essence is built upon interpreting stimulus to build models.

So, back to turning this question on its head. Why did God "create" anything? Why are we little pink blobs with eyes and mouths? Why do we hear? Why is the universe expanding and not in fact a banana? Do you see what I am getting at here? This question highlights the limits of human thought: how can everything be nothing. Doesn't compute with most people.

This is again a question I cannot answer in a definite form. Equally it is a question that cannot be asked in a definitive form. Why not nothing? Because if there was nothing, we could not ask the question. Why not something else? For very likely the same reason? If we go the God route, did he do it this way because he was bored, or because it looked pretty? Was he not just happy with pure energy? Or being ultimately divine? Did his plan involve us sniffing around for clues to his greatness?

I say this question is like painting water (try it, it doesn't work very well) for this reason; you can't do it. I could ask an atheist version of this question all day but it offers no genuine exploration of the world. You see, a meaningful question is one that pushes us towards an answer. I cannot answer this question, but that does not leave us any closer to a meaningful alternative. It's ridiculous to think this universe "just happened", but not so ridiculous to believe a man in the sky wanted to make it?

Something of another phyrric victory for the author. Yes, he has succeeded in delivering another ultimately unanswerable question, but this one moves away from meaningful discovery into absurdity. Why something and not nothing? How is that question helping whether we are alone or of God?

There is another facet to this question that is partly question 3, but I will deal with it briefly here. "Moral Order"? There isn't one. Most of civilisation behaves in a perceived moral way. I don't like people getting hurt. I have belief in family and friendship and love. But they are not absolute. God didn't give them to me. If he did he also gave me selfishness, jealousy and anger. He also gave some people no moral compass; serial killers, rapists, megalomaniacs. This is yet another question that revolves around somebody's gut feeling that there's an inherent righteousness that we're this close to achieving as humans, but not quite. We live in generally moral world because it is mutually beneficial to most people. I don't remember my cat getting upset because it killed a bird. I don't see any remorse in chimpanzees that savage other animals (even humans) in packs. Is that because God made me better? Well, possibly. Is that because I've evolved and been given a cultural upbringing? Yes, definitely. Try telling the still existing tribes of South Americans, Africans and Pacific Islanders, who do everything from female circumcision to orgies, sacrifice and ritual bloodshed that we have a "Moral Order".

3.) Where do you get your morals from?

The basic attitude taken here is that morals are prescriptive; they look forward to the future and challenge our future behaviour. Morals are not simply about looking back, but being intuitive about how to move into our future. Atheists, on the other hand, simply see morals as an evolutionary by-product for propagating the species, even at the expense of individual organisms.

I could write a book on this (or, better still, point to several excellent others) but firstly evolution works almost definitely at the gene level and not on the much bigger organism or species level. My earlier posts deal with this a bit so I'll leave it there.

Secondly, if morality is engaging us to better our futures, what is the conclusion it is driving us towards? Is it moral to send soldiers to war to protect a nation? Is it moral to take revenge on the man who has taken your wife? Is it moral just to let him do it? Is it moral to not have sex before marriage? Was it immoral before marriage existed? Is it immoral to murder? Is it moral to let rapists, paedophiles and violent criminals live?

I'm not offering answers for these questions, I'm saying they are unanswerable except by personal opinion. Morals are incomprehensibly dubious. They're not tangible at all. I didn't get them from anywhere divine or absolute. I was told stealing was bad. I was told hurting people is bad. I was told killing is bad. I saw first hand the pain it could bring and I didn't like it and I try as best as possible not to engage in those things.

I have, of course, been nasty. I have, of course, been cowardly and put myself first. I felt bad because of a deep, cultural indoctrination. I would have felt much different even 2,000 years ago. Our morals change constantly. Is homosexuality immoral? We are slowly accepting it. In 2,000 years time it's very likely the surviving religions will have incorporated it into their acceptable world view (after all, Jesus and Mohammed despised wealth, but Wall Street and the stock markets of Dubai are legitimate, even aspirational lifestyles these days. We don't see brokers and investors as evil but, from an older moral viewpoint, they are).

And where are morals taking us? To a better place? To a place without war and persecution and selfishness? Can you point that place out to me? Are America in Afghanistan for moral reasons? If they weren't there, would it be fair to let Al Qaeda flourish and launch attacks on your people for the sake of peacetime instead of war?

This is a flawed question and I could write 10,000 words and not even scratch the surface, but it comes down to this:

1) We have no absolute moral order. It changes from individual to individual, if only microscopically amongst the majority of us.

2) This world is not improving in the way a forward looking morals would suggest.

3) Morality is not a religious concept. As a selfish organism I do not want to expend energy hurting or taking from other people. If the benefit to me is significant I still probably won't do it because the emotional trauma and drain on my energy through guilt and worry would be a detriment. I am moral because I weight up the pros and cons and act selfishly on them. Most of the time the major con is that I have been brought up to feel bad about stealing, hurting or abusing. My emotional guilt would outweigh my physical gain. Is this an instilled morality? No, because I am doing it fundamentally for my own best good. If I cared less or wanted more, I would probably do something and live with the downsides because the pros were more significant.

The bottom line with this question is this: this man believes in some divine morality and I do not. Show it to me. Show me a consistent belief amongst any culture, creed or race, through even 150 years. Just twenty decades ago I might have owned a slave and been able to sleep easy at night. Where do my morals come from? Depends where I've been...

4.) How did morals evolve?

This question sort of destroys the "moral order" idea the author put forward previously. If he admits morals are evolving then how are they absolute.

The author of the video also creates a hypothetical scenario in which a caveman kills another caveman and feels guilty about it. Why does he feel guilty? Firstly he almost definitely doesn't. I cannot prove this to be so, but the soldiers of Greece apparently broke into Troy and smashed the Trojan babies over the walls to prevent them carrying Troy's legacy. This was quite a heroic thing to do, Homer felt. Could you imagine a rousing piece of patriotic American (or British/French/Indian/anywhere) literature written today in which your ancestors proudly ripped to bloody shreds its enemies? No, of course not. Today we do things out of duty, as solemnly and humanely as possible (supposedly).

This question doesn't really offer any useful answers. Morals evolved out of a complex development of our brains, language, culture, emotional receptivity. I could expand on these but I (and, more likely, you) just don't have the time. Or I could point out how each individual has a moral compass that is different. I don't need to be married before I have sex. Do you support our troops in the Middle East? Would you want to see the man who killed your family put to death? Is it right to steal from the rich to give to the poor?

Again, our answers will almost definitely be different, and that's just morality for beginners. If we got down to the real nitty-gritty we'd expose morality as a loose set of rules that most of us follow and, in day-to-day activity, appear the same. How you feel about racism, violence, military conflict, rape, pre-marital sex, the family unit, friendship, rules and charity, to name just a minute number of topics, however, would quickly establish you as an individual with only remote connection to a perceived "moral order".

5.) Can nature generate complex organisms, in the sense of originating it, when previously there was none?

Well, yes. Like most of these questions I don't really know where to begin not because I am confused or feel I can't answer them, but the scope is too large and even if I couldn't answer them, what "proof" does that give to religion?

Life is not intelligent. It is interesting that this author talks about atheists firing an arrow and then painting the bullseye around it, but sees life as beautiful and designed, morals as somehow absolute and obvious, and chance as a poor substitute for God. I'll actually leave that question there because I can't open up another method of answering it without writing too much.

So, overall, how did this video do? In truth it's not good. This man has used a lot of words and complex sentences to ask a few mostly useless questions. Two of his questions are about morality, which any decent atheist or religious person follow whether believing in God or not. Saying there is some intrinsic moral order is sort of like saying God made hamburgers because, well, the ingredients were all here to begin with. Morality is based on deep, deep cultural influence combined with a background knowledge of religion and the origin of life. Most of us are moral because we don't want to expend energy dealing with the negative consequences of our actions (you live in a tribe and kill one of your community; try dealing with the rest of them after that).

This man has made the classic mistake of believing that everything is just so and atheism flounders to say it's all down to chance. Everything is not just so, it's an absolute mess. We make order out of it because, well, if we didn't, we would likely be dead or some species incapable of questioning to this magnitude.

I'd ask this author to open his eyes and tell me how many times he sees intelligent design, morality and the influence of God, with observable accuracy, every day. Not what he perceives it to be, but what it actually is.

Now look for chance, for collections of organisms (humans) interfacing with each other in the best way they know how.

My problem with this video is that I could go on asking questions like this to a Christian all day; "Why did God create millions of species, many we don't even know about?", "Why are so many of us ill, hurt, poor, persecuted?", "How is humanity improving?", "Why doesn't God talk to us, as he did to Moses, to Abraham or to so many others", "Why are God's books so absolutely open to interpretation that nobody understands them?", "Why isn't God available to every human on this Earth; what about those tribes, races and people that have never been personally touched by God (nearly all of them) - God seemed to like the near East and the Mediterranean quite a bit".

Many people would scoff at some of the questions above and, to some extent rightly so. And that brings me to the point of my problem with this video; what does it prove? Does it really tackle an atheist where it hurts? No. These are a few gaps in the scientific explanation we have as humans. I don't know how life started. I don't know how morals evolved. I cannot prove how the universe came to be.

I can, however, point you to evidence (human evidence) for a myriad other things; evolution, the big bang, quantum physics, chance etc. Please point me to the evidence for God. Not the words. Not the experiences of others. Not the hopes and desires. Not the stars in the sky or the love we have for each other. I have seen all them and found God in none of them (in the traditional sense). Please show me something in any of them that, time after time, can be proven to be constant, real and unchanging from human to human.

This video simply asks "Why are things as they are?". I could throw that question right back at anybody, atheist, religious or otherwise.

What's the point...?

I started reading 'The Selfish Gene' by Richard Dawkins today. I've read 'The God Delusion' and 'The Greatest Show on Earth', both excellent books in their own right. 'The Selfish Gene', however, is widely regarded as Dawkins' masterpiece: a mainstream explanation of a massively misunderstood topic.

Dawkins is a somewhat controversial figure on many sides. Clearly extremely religious people find him, or at least his views, fairly abhorent. He's also criticised by a lot of other groups of people. It's an unfortunate circumstance of being 'mainstream', a celebrity in your field. Dawkins is to science and atheism what Bono is to charity and goodwill; undoubtedly an ambassador of its cause, but in danger of being viewed as self-serving or fuelled by public appreciation. For the record I don't believe this is true of either of them, but I do understand how eyes can roll when Dawkins' name is mentioned, particularly in theological discussion.

I can see why Dawkins can annoy some people. He's incredibly firm in his beliefs and often comes across as a trifle condescending to those who can't appreciate them. I don't believe he actually means to be that way, I think it's a circumstance of his upbringing, his success and his own frustrations at some of the cheap shots he must endure from anti-evolutionists, creationists and the staunchly religious. This is further exacerbated by his often incredible English manners. I can see how some could imagine him shaking your hand, smiling conspicuously rolling his eyes at what he would perceive as your ignorance. Anyway, I like Dawkins. He's a good human being, a fantastic scientist and an ambassador for the truth (the truth as we can find, not as some of us can hope it to be).

I've only just started 'The Selfish Gene', but today's post is about something I read in one of its many forewords and introductions (at least in my fairly new edition). I don't have the book to hand so I am not quoting, but Dawkins made an interesting point that some people actually claimed to become depressed by Dawkins view of life and its evolution.

At this point I must try and condense Dawkins' groundbreaking book into a few sentences, for those who have not read it. Basically, Dawkins argues that our genes are the unit that is selected by nature through reproduction (not our species). In other words, we're really a collection of genes that almost use our body as its protective casing. From the gene's perspective everything is about replication and we've been built to do whatever we can to ensure the survivability of our genes (not even our genes specifically, but the gene pool from which our genes originate).

In a nutshell Dawkins view of the origins and evolution of life is quite simple. Life is merely a chemical cocktail that formed out of a primeval soup millions and millions of years ago. It started when this chemical cocktail, through natural and chance combinations, developed the ability to replicate itself. These copies spread and spread and, after perhaps billions of mutations, tiny differences started to appear in the copies (after all, nothing is a perfect copy, certainly not when you copy from a copy etc.). These differences naturally meant that, over time, some of these replicators survived better and others did not. The replicators that survived better grew in number and, Bob's your uncle, were naturally selected. Some of these replicators may have started getting better protective protein shells; a trait that would have been passed on. Some may have developed the ability to consume others; a trait that would definitely improve its survivability at the expense of less accomplished replicators. If you think this through, you can see how replicators develop; how the best developments are naturally selected, and how these tiny mutations continue to advance the replicators into more complex lifeforms.

Follow this viewpoint down a long, long path and you get to modern life. Humans, therefore, are merely a bunch of genes (what replicators eventually evolved into) that work successfully. Our instinct and our bodies are designed to protect and re-produce, and that's that.

Going back to my point, many people found this viewpoint depressing, they told Dawkins. They felt futile and worthless, even angry and ashamed of themselves. What's the point, if all we are is a bunch of genes that have survived constant aggression and threat? How can we be satisfied or happy if we're built to consume, to survive at all costs, with no real compassion unless that compassion seeks to improve the chance of the gene pool's survival? And, of course, the most horrifying point for some people: how can we go on if there is no bigger plan? If all we are is a primeval cocktail of chemicals that has just evolved to this point with no thought or rationale as to where we might want to go. No God, no plan, no purpose. Our bodies aren't even really ours; they're vehicles our genes drive, looking to do nothing more than make copies of themselves.

How bleak, right?

I believe this to be fact, and the evidence is pretty compelling. We don't really know how life started, and yes, the probability of this "chemical cocktail" coming together in just the right way is staggeringly small. But it did happen, it is plausible given the time, the amount of chemicals, the sheer number of 'rolls of the dice' life would have had. And, as Dawkins so rightly points out; it only needed to happen once. Just once. Once that first replicator came onto the scene and made another in his own image (parallels there, huh?), everything was thrown into place. We became.

What the opponents of this view usually dislike the most is how random, useless and purposeless this makes everything. There's no reason to do anything. We as conscious people don't care about our genes, which are really invisible and unknown to us. Sure, we want to survive as individuals, but can we really feel comfortable in our own skin being a collection of genes looking to pass themselves on? Many people feel if there is no plan then there is no point. And that's bleak, frightening and dark to a lot of people. Most of us, perhaps.

But, here's the interesting thing. Let's look at this from another point of view entirely; the God believing perspective. Most religious people believe there is a God, he made us, he loves us and we are part of a beautiful plan; a harmony we don't ourselves understand. They usually believe there is life after death; a realm of immortality which, if we lived good lives, will be paradise and full of love and understanding.

It's a nice idea, sure. It gives us purpose; when you feel utterly without cause you can pray. You can maybe even hear God, feel him there next to you. You strive to be better because there is a reason to. You can be raised by a warmth that seems to come from nowhere. That there is always more than you can understand.

But what part of that is in the here and now? Praying, hearing God, feeling God, feeling loved; these are all things people claim to have felt. Equally some people have been told to murder and rape because they were told to by voices in their head (if you go back far enough, some historical figures were told this by their own Gods!). Similarly, I'm an atheist, but I have looked to the stars or heard a powerful piece of music and felt equally warm, amazed, overawed and endlessly curious about what it may all mean.

My rather crass murder/rape example is there to make a point: many of us feel we have relationships with things we cannot see or do not exist. Some of these relationships are loving and warm, some are deranged and dangerous. There is, however, a very good case that all are imagined and borne of human creation. I, of course, cannot prove that, and that's not what this is about.

Everybody's relationship with the universe, the way they understand their place in it, is personal. Whether you're an atheist, a Christian, a Muslim or a Pagan, your relationship with God is personal and different to every other person labelled with the same label (even atheists have a personal relationship with God; rejection is still a conscious decision borne of weighing up the situation). Your view of God's plan is different to everybody else's. The way you feel it and interpret is unique. It's the old "describe the colour red" conundrum: your perspective and appreciation of anything can only ever belong to you. Just because we both say we're happy or in love, it doesn't mean we are feeling the same thing...

To that extent 'God's plan' is really your plan. When you feel warm and part of something, it's because you've evolved a wonderful brain to imagine what might be there. Cat's don't get excited about God's love. An amoeba doesn't wonder what the point is. But the evidence proves we're all collections of the same building blocks of life. The only difference between you and the millions of bacteria inside of you is the adventure your specific collection of genes went on to get to this point.

And yet, wow. Let's think about this. We're all capable of love, of learning, of defying our genes and doing our own thing (how many of us have used contraception, the perfect example of how we've evolved to become independent of our genes). We all have the ability to create; music, art, buildings, stories, hope and happiness. And then there is this Earth, this universe. Most of us haven't seen 5% of this Earth. Imagine how much more is out there. We may never see it personally but, man, you have to get excited about the challenge of trying, right?

So my theory for today is this: I cannot tell you not to believe in 'God's plan', but I can tell you that whatever you choose to do or believe in this life it is your choice based on your feelings. Not your friends or family, or your species. Not even God's. Yours.

So don't be disheartened by Dawkins' theory, be utterly amazed. Billions of years have gone into making you what you are; a combination of chemicals capable of doing conscious or subconscious acts independently. This entire universe is your oyster. Experience what you can; defy your genes and be loving, caring and kind to others. Next time you take a drink of water, marvel at the process you have mastered just to bring your cup to your lips. Marvel at how your body will take that liquid and replenish you with it.

In my opinion, the greatest joy about being an atheist is that this universe actually becomes more fascinating. Just because you understand biological evolution it doesn't mean you should reproduce and then not care about anything else. The whole point is that we've evolved beyond that; we're so lucky! And the mysterious are still out there: there is still so much left to create and discover and pass on. You don't have to compromise any part of your moral compass. Murder, theft; these things are so clearly wrong because we have evolved to the point that it makes sense. I don't need to be afraid of hell to know that.

So, don't be afraid of a life without God (and please don't mistake that as an endorsement or suggestion for atheism). If you cannot reconcile your hope and desire for purpose with the idea of life being so random and developed from such a hostile environment, just remember that what makes us wonderful is that we are the first species to understand that, and to be able to divorce ourselves from that methodology. That, in itself, marks a simply staggering leap in our evolution and the way we interact with nature. Who knows what lies ahead?

Music

This probably isn't starting like a post about religion. I'm a big music nut, and a big big orchestral music nut. And I'm a big, big, big (big) John Williams fan. Most people will know John Williams for his orchestral film scores (Star Wars, Jaws, E.T., Indiana Jones, Harry Potter - not a bad resume, and that's probably less than 1/40th of it) but he's been equally involved in orchestral music outside of film music, and whilst he's not as well known for it, he's equally proficient.

One of my favourite non-film pieces by John Williams is the simply magnificent 'Call of the Champions'; written for the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. The premiere was performed by the excellent Mormon Tabernacle Choir (Mormonism not the subject of this post, but an interesting fact nonetheless) and, I believe, the Utah Symphony Orchestra. I'm posting a link to the piece below which, although unfortunately not quite the best performance (and without the trademark Tabernacle sound, as a different choir is singing), is probably the best recording on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGixEmzsQx4

Now, to get this post on track. I often hear people describe music as almost evidence for divinity and proof there must be a God. Let's face it; music is powerful, beyond comprehension. Whether it's Jazz or Rock, Metal or Electronica, a good piece of music in any style has the power to change people. A bad day can often be turned around by the right music. A difficult time can be processed, analysed and made bearable with soothing, introverted songs or favourite pieces.

But furthermore, music goes beyond language, some might say deeper (I certainly would). What's fascinating about music is how primal it is. You could play a powerful piece of music to anybody, from anywhere, with any background or cultural affiliation, and yet it can still move them to their very core. There's precious little in the world with that kind of raw energy.

Of course, this ability to move and emote beyond conscious or understanding has brought many people to the conclusion that it must be divine. I once read an interesting quote from the the Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) which read as follows:

For me an unforgettable experience was the Bach concert that Leonard Bernstein conducted in Munich after the sudden death of Karl Richter. I was sitting next to the Lutheran Bishop Hanselmann. When the last note of one of the great Thomas-Kantor-Cantatas triumphantly faded away, we looked at each other spontaneously and right then we said: "Anyone who has heard this, knows that the faith is true."

Interestingly Pope Benedict doesn't find faith in rock music, or in pop music. It presents an interesting conundrum to me: does he believe music is divine, or that only some music is divine? And, if some music is human in construction and composition, then couldn't all music be that way created?

I posted the John Williams piece to illustrate a point. To me that music is the closest to divinely inspired I can imagine. It soars triumphantly and joyously, in a sort of ecstasy; a pure celebration of what it is to live and understand and be a part of something bigger. In my more introverted, private moments that music has quite literally lifted my heart and soul; inspired and excited me, made me believe that anything is possible.

But do I believe God gave me that music through John Williams? No I do not. And not simply because I do not believe in God. At this point it's interesting to reflect on what 'Call of the Champions' is about; the human spirit. Written for the Olympics it's aim was to embody the challenges of humanity, and our response to it. Atheltics is of course a revered microcosm of the struggles and triumphs we face as individual and collective humans. Athletes dedicate and push themselves to the edge of their powers in the pursuit of purity and achievement in their field. This music, to me, evokes just that, and the inspiration and hope we can all derive from that.

So, what am I trying to say? Well, I believe, like the athletes his music celebrates, John Williams has also very humanly struggled and worked to bring us this wonderful piece of music. To call music divine is, in my opinion, a completely missed chance to recognise it is us as humans which we should celebrate and revel in. If God is behind all that is good then humans are nothing more than puppets; vessels to deliver this brilliance to each other.

But if we believe that we are indeed the one's producing magical, spiritual, hopeful music, that's an endlessly optimistic belief. Whether it's Bach or Beethoven, Mozart or Michael Jackson, NWA or Radiohead, it is humanity alone that reaches these heights; and we can take that to be a mere glimpse of what we could be capable of in other fields.

Next time you hear a piece of music consider it as a human construct; if indeed we as a species can produce work of this power, what else could we do in the firm belief that we have control of our own destiny? Next time the music consumes you with hope and desire and inspiration don't merely thank God, but thank the human that created it. And learn from them; go and create something positive yourself, and live happily in the knowledge that you may just have done it all by yourself...

Father George Coyne and many musings.

I don't know much about George Coyne, save what I've read on Wikipedia (so it could be argued I don't know anything about him...).

What I do know, however, is that from what little I've seen of him discussing his views on religion, science and philosophy, he's one of the most interesting, insightful and involving people I've ever heard in discussion.

I recommend that everybody, religious or otherwise, watch his fascinating interview with Richard Dawkins on YouTube. It's in seven parts, the first of which can be found at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po0ZMfkSNxc

(the rest are linked to the side of this one)

What I like most about Coyne is his assimilation of science and belief into one almost completely harmonious whole (I say almost because there are inherently "gaps" in both ways of life). Coyne is an intelligent, scientific man. He's a mathematician and cosmologist and his method of evaluating life is strictly evidence based. And yet, he still has faith. But he recognises it as such; faith.

What made me so engaged in Coyne's argument is that he knows his faith in miracles; in God and Jesus, are based purely on an inner belief. He doesn't attempt to point God out in our world. He doesn't even believe, necessarily, in a God that is all-knowing. Reading into what he says, Coyne offers a fascinating concept of a God who is perhaps unsure and evolving himself; working with what's in his universe to push it towards his vision.

I really like this idea. I don't necessarily believe it, but to me it offers a much more plausible view of God; not the all-knowing creator, but the very essence of this universe. He's not perfect, and he has to work with what is happening around him, but he has the same love for us as the more traditional, perfect creator.

The idea of a perfect, all knowing and all seeing God, is really a very modern concept. A flash in the pan of historical theism. The Gods of Greek mythology, for example, were every bit as human as we are in their desires, tempers and lusts. Most of Greek mythology is based on the idea that the jealousies and schemings of the Gods were acted out here, on the playground that is Earth. And to me, as much as of course I don't believe in Zeus on Mount Olympus, I can see how that view makes sense.

One of the reasons I do not accept religion is because I do not see God's plan in anything around me. That may be a given; perhaps God's plan is "bigger" than me, something I couldn't possibly comprehend. I can't buy that though, and here's why. God has apparently spoken to us through scripture. His demands and desires are very human in their conception: that we love, believe, and obey. If we do this, we're rewarded in eternity. Not so bad, in principle.

And yet, why is the plan so obscure and unknowable? What possible larger schemes could there be? Why is God so human in his desires and yet so divine in his explanation? I know that questioning God is not something that's traditionally held as acceptable; God is God, and that should be enough. And yet, clearly it isn't. The Bible, the Qu'ran: these are books that need interpretation as our society and cultures change, that much is agreed. Most enlightened believers now understand the Creation Myth is just that, or that the teachings of Jesus are not literal but metaphysical, metaphorical and deeper than the words they are contained in.

If that's true doesn't God want us to question, to muse and to interpret? Isn't our free will and ability to analyse a gift that we have no choice but to use to know God? And, if that's the case, how then can we simply obey without question? We cannot, for every rule, every idea, is a million different things to a million different people.

I think one of the problems in the world today is that people give themselves over to God without question. That people angrily tell us we "cannot question" or "cannot dispute" what God has planned. On the contrary, surely we must if we there is anything to learn about God? If God wanted us to know without debate, he could have given us better, more absolute ways to understand. Scripture is riddled with puzzles and nuance; it's not clear. God supposedly spoke to Moses. He could speak to all of us; update us, explain what we must do in plain language to every race and every culture. He has before, so there is no difficulty in doing so again.

Instead we are left with outdated, uncertain, horrendously edited and amended texts that within them supposedly lie the truth (or should I say truths, for there is of course, more than one book of God's word). Surely God's plan is now a needle in a haystack? Isn't it time he helped us again? And not through prayer or suggestion; but as he supposedly helped Moses, or sent Jesus to heal and perform miracles, or as he flooded the Earth to rid it of its malice.

So, if there is a God, I am fairly certain he wants us to question; to probe and analyse. He clearly isn't happy telling us how it works.

And we do probe and analyse. It's called science, and it uncovers ways of working that God did not feel fit to inform us of. Nevertheless that is how the universe works.

Perhaps there is reconciliation here, amongst all these ramblings and confusions. And, to bring this full circle, I think Father George Coyne demonstrates that reconciliation in the most fascinating of ways. This universe works in ways we do not understand, and yet piece by tiny piece we are unlocking those secrets. Perhaps God has given us the ability to question and an infinite playground; of physics, chemistry, biology culture and literature, to play in. If I believed in God I think he'd applaud our questioning and searching. Even if we sometimes don't get it right, we work hard to pave the way for the future generations to.

I think this is what Coyne is trying to tell us. We simply must continue our quest to unlock the way things work; that is our driving purpose. Whether as scientists or scholars; as atheists or believers, we all want the same thing; understanding. Where Coyne differs from me is that he gets to the point of the unknown and simply holds his hands up and says "I have faith". Not evidence, or modern miracles, or the Word of God written clearly and concisely. Coyne simply, deep inside of him, believes in his faith. And that cannot be taken away from him, or given to others.

If there is a God, he's clearly not interested in dictatorship, but instead in leaving us to find our own way. And we're all trying to do that. And I like that idea, it's harmonious. Whether you find your beliefs at the top of the page or the bottom of the test tube we are all potentially doing God's work.

If I was a believer, I'd give myself an Amen to that...

Ben Stein

"Bueller, Bueller..."

It's a shame I like Ben Stein. He's got a great, no-nonsense personality and, of course, was in Ferris Bueller's Day Off (I know this isn't really important but, man, I really like Ferris Bueller's Day Off). He has a good way with words and a kind of brick wall affront that makes him a compelling man to listen to.

Or should that be a hypnotic man to listen to?

Because, as much as I like Ben Stein's personality, his views on religion, evolution and life are downright absurd.

I could go on forever about Ben Stein (I probably will as this blog expands) but I want to mention today his frankly absurd view on evolution. For those who don't know Ben Stein watch him on YouTube. I'll post up this link where he interviews Dawkins because, as much as Dawkins is right (not necessarily about aliens but, well, anybody with a thinking brain will know that's not what Dawkins is actually saying), you can see how Stein's brick-wall persona can be unsettling (although, for the record, I think this interview is like, most interviews, pretty much constructed and not really a true, real-time debate):

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

What really gets to me about Stein, more than most of the things he says, is his pretty obvious belief that atheists are vacuous, unloving and uncaring souls who are terrified by the idea of a judgemental God. Stein believes in the pretty narrow minded point of view that atheists are really selfish attention seekers, more interested in their own views than in disproving God. Quite how that argument works I don't understand, as Stein is the very epitome of God's ambassador interested in upholding his own views on God, often at the behest of common sense.

What annoys me about Stein is his view on evolution. He seems to largely believes it as an untrue theory, in favour of the theory of Intelligent Design (oh dear...). Worse still he claims the theory of evolution has led to such depraved events as the Holocaust.

He is right there, I concede. In the same way religious beliefs have led to such depraved events as the Crusades, 9/11, the Spanish Inquisition, the Troubles in Ireland and the mass crucifixions of Roman times (to name but a tiny, tiny few).

The truth is any theory, doctrine, belief or point of view can be twisted to its own ends. The concept of 'Survivial of the Fittest' in undoubtedly quite a cruel one, but evidence for it is so abundant it's not even worth trying to refute. Everyday thousands and millions of life forms are dying for the sustenance or longevity of another. Those that are able to withstand these attacks survive, and those that survive breed and pass on their genes. Some of these genes may be useless or unimportant but, logically, the genes that allow a lifeform to survive are also passed along. This is how nature selects the course of every species, and how through millions of tiny mutations, changes and combinations species evolve.

But the point is this. We, as human beings, have evolved to the point where we are conscious of this phenomena, and we can choose as humans what to do about it. Because evolution exists scientifically and naturally it doesn't mean to say it needs to exist socially, or culturally. These days any sane and emotional being would be horrified by the idea of executing those that "don't contribute" to the gene pool, or are impaired or somehow tax our resources. Whether disabled, mentally or physically, or ill or disadvantaged in any way, we recognise all life has value. Even an atheist gets that (yes, Mr. Stein, even an atheist).

And the reason is this: Survival is now no longer our daily challenge (at least not obviously). Food, shelter; these things are more stable for most of us (though clearly not all of us) than they ever have been in the past. What matters now is what we can impart: knowledge, art, an understanding of this world, hope or happiness. These are not strictly part of nature's design, but they add meaning to a world in which our conscious can ask questions and search for meaning.

That's why everybody regardless of race, culture, or the state of their body or mind, can produce something worthwhile. And that's why anybody with common sense will see the evidence for evolution in nature, but not wish to apply it to society.

I think Ben Stein's use of the holocaust to arouse deep emotion is frankly a cheap shot (he even compared one of Obama's policies to the Nazi regime, if I remember correctly). Hitler was a deranged man. He could quite easily have been a Christian fanatic as much as he was a fanatic of the concept of the Aryan race. Ben Stein equating evolution with the holocaust is sort of like me equating Christianity to shopping for gifts, just because that's what I do at Christmas. Hitler took the principles of evolution and he distorted them and applied them to his view of society, and it was clearly a despicable doctrine that Hitler devised.

Evolution exists, whether Ben Stein likes it or not. It happens naturally in every species and we don't need to consciously attempt it at the social level in our own. Stein should rejoice in evolution: finally, we've evolved as a species to no longer need to fight for our survival so fiercely, or to execute individuals that cannot fight with us. That's a glorious thing and it doesn't have to come from God.

So, Mr. Stein, you'll never read this, but please, don't pity me. I'm not a soulless atheist who feels cold and secretly doesn't care what happens to my neighbour or my species. I love humanity and I love what we can achieve and, yes, I'll even love you. Just don't tell me I need God to do that please.

Oh, and mark me absent, I'm not coming to class...

In the Beginning...

Let me explain a bit about myself.

I'm probably what you'd call an Agnostic. Most people believe that Agnosticism is equivalent to being unsure about God's existence but, actually, Agnosticism isn't quite that. Agnosticism is a belief that there is an unknowable; something more to this universe than the physics and chemistry and biology that make it up, but that the unknowable is precisely that: unknowable.

To put it simply:

Gnosis: Knowledge (Greek)

Agnosis: Without Knowledge (Greek... probably...).

So I am both an atheist and an agnostic (the two are not mutually exclusive). Now, my conversion to atheism (from apathy, I'll add) has come about quite recently. Whether or not it's because I'm having a mid-twenties crisis (unlikely..) or because I'm searching for answers (more likely...) or because I'm simply rekindling my passion for the important things in life (most likely...) I cannot say. I was brought up in an incredibly relaxed but nevertheless religious family (certainly on my Mother's side, less so on my Father's) and attended Sunday School at a Christian (more specifically, Methodist) Church. I would say I was, for most of my childhood, the ultimate passive believer. I believed in God in the same way I believed my Mother's cooking was the best (alas it's not, but it's damn good). I believed because I didn't question.

To cut a long story short (my plethora of future posts will more than make up for my brief introduction) let me explain what this blog will be about. My fundamental belief is that open, peaceful debate, analysis, research and the continual challenging of beliefs is the most important thing we humans have. The major progress our species has made since developing (or, let me lay my cards on the table early, evolving) a conscious and intelligence has come about from questioning, experimenting and communicating. These are the fundamentals of civilization and I have no doubt that every scholar and thinker: be they secular or religious, scientist or philosopher, the geniuses of this world or the "average Joe" that so many of us are, all of us who add something to this world do so through these principles.

So, my blog is about questioning. In it I'll be linking to articles, films, YouTube videos and whatever else (literally, whatever else) causes me to have a response, or that I think is worth debate or analysis. This is not a virtual sermon (of the atheist kind), where I try and prove my beliefs. My beliefs are constantly being tested, and I'd like everybody who reads this blog to test both myself and each other. I hope that as we move into the future this blog can become a useful and meaningful debate on the biggest of questions: who we are, where we came from, and why it is this way.

I will be posting more tomororow, but I want to leave you with nice little quotes (one of which I have taken the name for my blog from, more than anything because I'm not good enough to come up with a name of my own):

"I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence" - Doug McLeod.

"Skepticism is the beginning of faith" - Oscar Wilde.

I'm very excited about what I may learn and even, perhaps, what I may teach on this blog. I look forward to what the future holds.

Yours, Mah Jong.