When Atheists Have FAITH In Science

"You would have to be remarkably resistant to brainwashing to resist the claim - endlessly repeated - that we are our brains. The notion that our consciousness, the self to which successive moments of consciousness are attributed, our personality, our character, personhood itself, are identical with activity in our brains is so widely received that it seems downright eccentric to profess otherwise." - Raymond Tallis "Aping Mankind"

Until this last weekend I have never understood why theists say that "atheists have faith in science", or that "science is our religion."

I do now.

For some, those analogies are anathemas. "How could that be true?", they cry. "Science is a process," they argue. "It's a collection of models which best fit the observations we make of the world around us. It is driven by research and evidence. We don't need faith to believe it. The evidence is there!"

The problem comes when atheists start to defend science like it can never be wrong. They really do start to sound like Christians defending the Bible, or Muslims defending the Qur'an. Science for these people isn't the nebulous constantly shifting and improving body of "best models we have at the moment" we all know it is, for them it's rigid, and certain. No more so than the people who have come to believe the all-pervasive, yet pseudo-scientific belief that "we are our brains" and therefore we do not have conscious free will.

I can already hear many of you shifting in your seats and a few gasps of air have been gasped in an incredulous manner as that last bit sank in. Yes, I did say that the evolutionary psychologist position that we are our brains is nonsense. It is a scientifically religious concept, or Scientism if you like.

If you want to believe that we humans are only a by-product of trillions of sodium-potassium exchanges in the neuronal matter of our brains then fine, stop reading now and go grab a coffee, or have a lie down. For those of you who aren't fooled by this homeopathic account of consciousness and actually want to understand where I'm coming from, strap in.

When I suggested this idea to an atheist on Twitter recently I was immediately branded a "closet-Creationist", accused of being insane, Called "Mr Black and White" (whatever that means), and because I have a disability which affects my memory (I'm not kidding) I was called a liar. Apparently he's all for us being our brains until faced with the evidence that one key component of fibromyalgia (which I suffer from) is memory-loss, which according to him I don't suffer from, instead I'm just choosing to lie to him. If we are our brains, as suggested, I cannot lie to him. I cannot reasonably be held responsible for any action I take because, according to him, I am the victim of an evolutionary drive to do whatever it is I'm currently doing. So, even if I was I would not be lying to him, my brain would be. I'm absolved of all guilt. So the statement "there are no murderers, only victims of brain activity" is also a valid according to this neuromaniac. It rather makes you wonder doesn't it? But, this does illustrate one underlying principle of Neuromania, similar to a condition we see in theists all the time, which we call "cherry-picking of facts!"

What do we get when we point out that God wasn't a nice guy in the Bible?
Lots of Bible passages cherry-picked to show he was (or that Jesus was) and personal insults.

What do we get when we point out contradictions in the text of the Bible?Lots of apologetics, and links to websites and blogs and videos teaching us ignoramuses why these contradictions aren't contradictions. And personal insults.

What do we get when we claim Jesus was likely a mythical god and not a real person?Lots of Bible passages claiming to describe him as real, links to the Gospels, more videos, articles written by believers and so on. Oh... and personal insults.

Guess what I got when I told this fellow that neuromania was a thing and we are not just our brains?

You guessed it... Cherry-picked studies, links to books and videos which supported his views, and the aforementioned incredulity and ad hominem attacks... exactly what we've all come to expect from theists.

People who think science is awesome (myself included) must also realize that science isn't definitive. There are many faults with it. Almost every study suffers from a degree of bias. Most scientists go to great length to iron out these biases, or at least own up when their sample-size isn't as big as they'd like, or when people dropped out of the study, or when something didn't otherwise go to plan, or even when they weren't meticulous enough, but there are people who perform studies with such tunnel-vision that they publish without noticing even the basic flaw in their methodology, or results. Their premise is incorrect to start with, or their conclusions are all wrong at the end.

One of the key "we are our brains" (WAOB) studies is Libet's experiments which showed that our brains "light up" on an EEG moments before we are aware of the desire to move a hand. This suggests that the brain activates our hand movement before we are even aware that we have actually made the decision to move it. This study was flawed for a number of reasons but it completely forgot that it is entirely possible that the area of the brain controlling the hand movements lit up because it had been told to, by the mind of the subject being studied. A conscious decision activating the brain which fed-back a confirmation code, which the participants mistook as the decision itself, which then led to the hand being raised.

Think about that. There are a few scenarios worth considering:

One :
The areas of our brains which control hand movement lights up.
We become aware of the need to move our hands.
We move our hands.

Two:
The areas of our brains which control hand movement lights up.
We become aware of the desire to move our hands.
We decide to move our hands.

Three:
Our minds tell our brains to activate our hands.
The areas of our brains which control hand movement lights up.
We become aware of the decision to move our hands.
We move our hands.

In all three cases the EEG lights up moments before an awareness is felt and then the hand is moved. Exactly what Libet saw.

If your argument is that we move our hand exclusively because the brain tells us to and we have no conscious control over that action, you're ignoring the possibility that the brain is being told what to do by something outside itself and the decision was in fact entirely our own; and that deciding to do something involves the subconscious as much as the conscious parts of our minds, and the non-physical as much as physical parts of our brains. It's a bit like arguing that workers on the factory floor make the shoes their boss tells them to make, whilst forgetting that the factory output is controlled by market forces. If you only have a method for assessing the actions of the factory boss, you're missing half the picture aren't you? In the above second case the brain tells our hand to move and we decide to do it, so there is an active participatory control mechanism in place between the brain and the hand. In the third instance the brain is being controlled from somewhere else which cannot be examined.

You can only test for things you can test. Aren't we telling theists that all the time? We admit openly that we could be wrong. There might be a god. However, given that we cannot test for one it can be assumed that there isn't one. And yet, the WAOB crowd refuse to accept that, since we cannot test for the mind, we could be wrong about there not being one!

If we are our brains and we have no conscious control over anything we do, we cannot be any more in control when we are awake than we are when we are asleep. We cannot be any more in control when we perform neurosurgery to cure a person of epilepsy than we are when having an epileptic fit of our own. This makes no sense at all.

I hope you can all understand how ridiculous that notion is though, because our legal systems can. After all, I wonder how many WAOB fanatics would be willing to stand up in a Court of Law to defend a paedophile accused of rape and murder, by stating for the record that he is under the complete control of his brain, carrying out only evolutionarily dictated actions (or actions determined by damage to otherwise normal areas of the brain) and therefore cannot be held responsible, so should be allowed to go free without any punishment?

Any takers?

Let's be honest here for once, shall we? The WAOB concept is all fine in principle, but not a single one of us truly believes it when taken to its extremes, any more than we think a theist would truly believe in a god when we take her beliefs to their extremes. We know what we think of ourselves, we can direct other people to become aware of our emotions, of other things in our spacial environment, or talk in the abstract about so far incomplete ideas. We can experience guilt, which we may or may not chose to use to change future actions. We can fight our supposedly evolutionary preference for 0.7 hip-to-waist ratioed women, or women from our own class, caste or "race", to settle down with a rotund, or skinny lady from the opposite side of the colour spectrum to our own, just because she has a similar sense of humour, or likes the music of Schubert and knows how to make a great omelette! Yes, I do know that all of these things can be explained, it is claimed, by evolutionary psychology, but it really is just the scientific equivalent of theistic apologetics isn't it?

When we look for someone who is similar to us they say it's because of our evolutionary compulsion for tribalism. Yet, When we look for someone opposite to us they say it's because of our evolutionary drive to widen the genepool. I call this having a bell for every tooth. We can find "research" to support every position under the Sun, so why bother with any of it?

The bottom line is that I think, rather than the declaration "We are our brains!", the very best we can do, if we want to remain honest and, most of all, consistent, is make the claim that "We could be our brains!" And, if you decide that makes me a closet-Creationist, insane, or whatever else.

There's apparently nothing either one of us can do about that.



For an in-depth study as to why Neuromania is wrong, see Prof. Raymond Tallis' excellent book "Aping Mankind: Neuromania, Darwinitis and the Misrepresentation of Humanity." This blog represents an incredibly simplistic view of the arguments against scientism. If you only go by what I've said, I really feel for you. You need to look for better evidence than what I've said. You, more than anyone, need to read Prof. Tallis' book. :)


.

My 5 Top Tips for Atheists

Hi... it's been a while.

It has been suggested that I write a post about how to deal with being new to the wonderfully liberating world that is atheism.

I have been an atheist for 30 years. It started when I was bored one summer in 1985 and decided to read the family Bible. It was a big, old, leather bound thing with a family tree in the front of it and lots of illuminations (Bible-speak for drawings.) So, once a day I settled down in the spare room to read the book, from cover to cover. About half way through reading Genesis I became an atheist. To this day I fail to see how anyone with any sense can make it through the first two chapters of Genesis and not immediately realize that the book is fiction. I finished the Old Testament (OT) and gave up, only to go back to it a few years later when we started doing work on the New Testament (NT) in school. Trust me when I tell you that the content of the book bares little or no resemblance to what teachers and preachers tell you it says. No wonder the Christian community spends so much time and energy (and money) on apologetics... but more on that later.

Paganism crept in shortly after this, but it was always of the atheist variety, that being a belief that the "gods and goddesses" of the religion are nothing more than archetypes (see Jung) for the ways in which we express ourselves and look forward to new challenges. A less wank-tastic version of the "think like a lion become a lion" crap they try to make you do at 'self-improvement' seminars.

Anyway, since I am not new to this game I will let you new atheists (not to be confused with "New Atheists"*) into a few secrets on how to handle your new life.

Many of you reading this will not be in the liberal and accepting position I was in. My father is an ignostic aptheist, which is someone who literally does not see the point of gods and therefore doesn't give a hoot about them. My mother, was and still is a Christian, although she has not seen the inside of a regular church for as long as I can remember, except for weddings, baptisms and funerals. So, my dad puts up with my talking about atheism and theism but considers the subject to be entirely boring and my mother listens with polite amusement. I am 42 now, with kids of my own (both self-declared atheists) so what can she say, eh?

I know this might seem like a dream come true for many of you. There are those who cannot speak up for fear of harm, isolation and financial loss. I worry about you guys. It boggles my mind that a religion (and they all do this) which talks about caring and accepting everyone, puts so many caveats in place to prevent people from leaving. There are a number of reasons why, but the biggest one has to be what social psychologist Irving Janis affectionately call "groupthink".

"Groupthink occurs when a group values harmony and coherance over accurate analysis and critical evaluation. It causes individual members of the group to unquestioningly follow the word of the leader and it strongly discourages any disagreement with the concensus." - Psychology Today

For this reason I am not here to tell you how, or when, to 'come out' as a non-believer. That is for you to decide, based on your circumstances and perception of the results that might follow from such an action. My advice is to hold fast and remember that atheism is growing quickly and social media outlets such as Twitter and Facebook are providing some great resources and bringing people together. You are NOT alone. Atheism is becoming more normal, and the proof of this can be seen in the recent escalation in religious people and groups becoming more vocal about their faith, and declarations of whole countries which are seeing a decline in religiosity being "Christian countries" by various politicians.

All I can tell you is that (on the whole) the atheist community are very supportive of recently deconverted atheists and the level of tolerance found here is infinitely higher than in any religion.

In with being asked to write this was a tacit request for advice on how to deal with internet theists who flood the cables with apologetics and nonsense. So here are my top 5 tips for dealing with theists online and in real life:

1. Remember that YOU do NOT have to prove anything. 

The theist is the one making the positive claim that a god exists, and therefore the onus (no matter what they tell you) is on them to prove it. Apart from saying "I don't believe your claims." you really do not have to say much else. You can be as dismissive as you like. Often I like to treat them like some drunk who tells you that they are a secret agent, or an alien. A "Really? That's interesting, but oh... look at the time... gotta run!" is all you need to say. You can block the ones who just will not quit talking at you. "So what?" is a powerful phrase.

"Atheism isn't true" - "So what?"
"So GOD is!" - "So what?"
"So YOU have to listen?" - "OK, why?"
"If you don't YOU WILL BURN IN HELLFIRE!" - "Yeah? So what?"
"You're LOST and need to be FOUND again! Find SALVATION in the arms of JEEEEEEEEEEZZZUUUUUSSS!!!" - "Yeah? OK. Whatever. See ya round mate."

The more people of this ilk start to realise that we don't care what they think and/or say, the more agitated they get, but eventually one or two do start to wonder why we don't care and look for answers. If they do so with an objective mind they usually deconvert. Trying to get a theist to be objective can be difficult. Though, that's perhaps how you got here. Hi... welcome to sanity.

2. Learn how to ask the right questions.

Let's say you have decided to engage with the theist and argue your point with them. My advice to you is to learn about Socratic Questioning, either from Dr Peter Boghossian's book "A Manual For Creating Atheists", or the excellent YouTube video series on Street Epistemology by Anthony Magnabosco. This line of thinking is extremely effective at dealing with theists.

The hardcore "hell and brimstone" types hate Socratic questioning because no matter how hard they try you just keep requesting more detailed information. This "lunatic fringe" cannot understand why you are deflecting their nonsense back at them, and even the "scholars" eventually start to hate it when their knowledge runs out and they are either forced to ignore you, go around in circles or get angry. In each cases you have won the debate. You'll get used to a lot of toys being thrown from a lot of prams on this journey.

3. Be patient. 

Many of the people you come across are victims of their own religion's brainwashing scheme. Think back to when you believed the nonsense. You may still harbour fears about losing your soul, burning in a fiery lake, or being tortured forever. Religious bullshit can be very hard to wash off.
Ask yourself how would you want to be spoken to? You have an advantage in that you have been there too and so you know how it feels to believe those things, and be in their situation. I know that for some people enlightenment came when someone ridiculed them and they got pissed enough to go looking for counter-arguments and found only common sense staring at them (like Jerry DeWitt and Matt Dillahunty) but for many telling them they're stupid only makes them more likely to entrench themselves in their beliefs.

4. Follow your own path. 

Are you interested in evolution and science? If so, then read, read, read! Lots of great books by many great authors are out there waiting for you to pick them up and read, or listen to in the car on the way to work. For some good recommendations follow people like David Smalley, or Aron Ra, or ask me. If you are not interested in evolution, or science you don't have to be. Only theists equate atheism with an interest in science and technology. You might prefer art, literature, music or any number of other things.

When you find a theist who argues that atheism is not true because evolution is false just ignore them. For one, they are using a form of logical fallacy and for another, who cares? You don't, right? Evolution isn't your thing, so just don't worry about it. Your non-belief is probably founded on your realization that the evidence for a god just doesn't stack up. It has nothing to do with science. Even if evolutionary scientists have it all wrong, the claims of the theist are no more likely to be true. In this vein I often ask that very question: "If evolutionary scientist are mistaken, how does that affect the claims made by theists about creation?" You'd be surprised how often that's met with silence, or a lot of words thrown together which don't make any sense to anyone but the person who said it (word-salad.)

It's not your job to argue FOR evolution, or any argument FOR your position at all. See point 1. The argument "Evolution isn't true, therefore Yahweh!" is no more valid than "Jelly isn't true, therefore Sasquatch!"

5. Look for inconsistencies.

When one theist makes a point, try to remember who it was who made that claim, or said that thing. For instance, if one of them says gays are evil, then make a mental note. Then, when someone else, says that gays are misguided, or putting on a show, you can point towards that other guy and say "I've heard *insert name of other person here* say *whatever he/she said*, why do you think you are right and not him/her?" or something to that effect. The point being that if theism were true and there WAS a god out there telling his subjects that ONE truth they all claim to be privy to, why do they all take up such different, and often opposite positions on things?

It's helpful, though not essential, that you learn what is and what isn't a logical fallacy. Matt Dillahunty's videos and episodes of the Atheist Experience and David Smalley's Dogma Debate are great resources.

If Christianity was uniform across the board its claim might have a bit more weight to it, but with around 40,000 versions (denominations) of it out there in the world we can be sure that, they can't ALL be right and they're probably all wrong. If one theist is really good at being consistent you can contrast his/her views with that of another and watch as the "he's wrong I'm right" arguments start.

These are my "top-tips", though other atheists approach debate in entirely different ways. I'm not always so kind to believers because their BS is so damn stupid the only thing I can offer them is my impatience.

I hope these ideas have been helpful. Thanks for reading. As usual, all comments are welcome.


*New Atheists is a term, usually used derogatorily against atheists who are vocal about their disdain for religion and the use of faith over good reasoning. Basically its used to describe any atheist who, when told to shut up by a preacher or imam, says "NO!"

Something You Ought To Know About

Hi,

I'm not sure it's usual for a blogger to recommend you leave his site immediately and check out someone else's blog, but that's precisely what this blogger is now doing.

A twitter friend of mine, who goes by the necessarily anonymous title of @Elishabenabuya, has a blog in which he shares his extensive knowledge of the Old Testament. His background is that of being a Talmud scholar for over 50 years, but who is now an atheist, putting to rest those oft cited myths of the Bible being a reliable source of history and the current translations being representative of the original texts.

You can find it here: apikoris.blogspot.co.il

If you are an atheist and you're not reading Elisha's blog and following him on twitter I don't really know what to do with you.

Perhaps a darkened room might help.

I jest, but you do really need to get on it.

Cheers y'all!

Who is Mr. Maker?

The God posited by most Christians is one with ultimate, or infinite, power.

We see that term "maximally great" coming up from time to time.

However, if you think that a god exists and he is the creator of the universe, and everything in it, at which point do you make the leap from there to his power being greater than all other gods?

We have no idea, in god terms, how much power making this universe requires. For all we know this could all be a level one class at god school. 

"Great work Yahweh, I like what you've done with physics there. The gravity is really good, but that dark matter is... Class, look at Yah's universe for a second. Look at the way his dark matter flows through his space. That's really neat Yah... 'A+', but be careful not to over reach in your next assignment in Level Two's blended reality project."

How does anyone know that this god is maximally great? It's like bees thinking I'm some fantastic ethereal creature just because the hive I made for them was of perfect quality, by their standards.. The only difference being that occasionally a bee-keeper is going to pop along and make (at least) his existence known.

This brings me back to a point I made in an earlier post. Let's say God did make this universe, does it follow that He is in charge of it still? How can we be sure that the god in charge now is the same one who created it all? Did you make the car you drive?

All we have to go on is a rather simplistic view posited by ancient people's who were keen to move away from a polytheistic concept into a more monotheistic view which affords far better control of the flow of ideas and, ultimately, distribution of power.

Of course it could also be true, that the Elohim (plural) created the universe and everything in it for the LORD (God) who has since assumed control over a prefab universe. Elohim is a plural (essentially the distilled essence of all the gods) so why isn't it so that a group of gods made everything? This could account for Yahweh's inability to change anything dramatically, or intervene to stop tornadoes from tearing up houses in the US Bible-Belt! He just doesn't have that sort of juice!

Any of these scenarios could be true, so why is it that the standard Christian idea, that God rules the universe He created, so pervasive?

The church wants it to be this way and their "sheep" just lap it all up.

That's the only reason I can think of. 

"Ad homs" and why they don't matter

We're all painfully aware of the theists' black and white attitudes to morality (however twisted) and the way they insist that a person's character somehow dictates the veracity of their arguments about the (non) existence of a god, or gods. This is known as an ad hominem fallacy and it roughly translates as "you're a bad person and so you know sod all" or "I don't have to listen to you because you say things I think are immoral... lalalala talk to the hand!"

Luckily we're also quite aware of the old saying "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never harm me." Well, at least I hope we all are. Otherwise I might be talking to a few precious souls who think that insults and swearing matter. They don't. Get over yourself already!

This is the problem we have. Recently someone on the atheist side of the fence was tagged as being a racist, or sexist, or both, I wasn't really paying attention, and so his arguments were deemed null and void on the theist side. A classic ad hominem fallacy. We've all said things in the past which we regret, and I suspect that if half the stuff we think were to be broadcast we'd all be in the mire up to our necks, or personae non grata within our own communities. Such is the way of things. None of us are completely free of bias, or prejudice in our daily lives. How else do you size someone up?

Hopefully most of us are completely accepting of the big things, like LGBT rights, anti-racism, anti-bullying, anti-bigotry etc, and write off swearing at the moron who cut us up on the dual-carriageway as a blip in an otherwise flawless personality. But, would it matter a bit to the argument for God's existence if I were a racist arsehole? If I thought that the evidence for God's existence is insubstantial and therefore unproven, which it is, would being a "nigger-hater"* matter a jot as far as the debate goes?

No. Emphatically NO!

You see, it's time we stopped worrying about what people on the side of irrationality and nonsense think of us. They're not thinking clearly. Remember. They think a god exists. They're not being honest with themselves, so why would we consider what they think of us to be relevant?

What matters is the honesty of the discussion, not who's having it. Remember that according to legend, Socrates was convicted of a crime for which he received a death sentence, but nobody is writing off the Socratic Method of questioning as a dud are they?

Frankly the theists can say what they like about me. In fact I encourage them to defame me as much as they like. Perhaps they'll come up with something I've not heard from anyone else before... I doubt they'll come close to anything I've said of myself.

Our call to them should be a simple one... say whatever you want about us, as long as you're honest in the debate and everything will eventually work out.

As long as we remember to not make the same mistakes they do and try to avoid calling them names, or writing off their arguments as invalid just because they are paying money to institutions which may actively promote science denial, child abuse, abuse of civil and women's rights and hatred of gays.




*a hypothetical argument

Onus Probandi

I've been off for a while. My apologies, but my health fluctuates so sometimes I'm unable to focus clearly enough to write extensively.

Back with it now though.

While I've been away I've noticed that many theists on twitter, and in TV debates are still using the old fallacy of trying to turn the debate around and putting the onus probandi, or burden of proof, back onto the person denying the claim that they are making. This argument from ignorance is truly annoying.

Theists think that they get to claim whatever they like and because we cannot prove them wrong they get to claim victory.

The problem lies in their inability to extrapolate. If we cannot prove a god exists, then the god must be real, right? Well, they cannot prove that a universe-creating troll exists, so that must be the real truth. How would we ever decide which one was responsible for creating our universe? Then there's Bertrand Russell's cosmic teapot. How do you prove him to be incorrect? Is the teapot going to collide with any future mission to Mars? Does NASA need to take it into account?

Sometimes you achieve minor successes. I recently got one theist to admit that humans make up gods, but he couldn't get his head around the idea that the one he follows might likewise be a human invention. How frustrating! The cognitive dissonance required to apply rules to other ideas, but not your own, is beyond me.

Theists also tend to demand greater evidence for the negation of their claim than the claim they are themselves making. If I told you that I could fly without mechanical assistance you wouldn't be expected to prove me wrong, and likewise it wouldn't be incumbent upon you to prove that humans could not fly under any circumstances. I would not expect you to provide anatomical evidence, such as examples of bone or muscle tissue, or models of the physiological makeup of humans etc. etc. The onus is on me to provide you with evidence, perhaps by actually flying!

This moving of the goalposts is irritating, but like the shifting of the burden of proof it is just aimed at shutting down the conversation. It's the debating equivalent of "I am, but what are you?"

Why should an atheist be expected to be an expert in archaeology, chemistry, cosmology, physics, biology, anatomy, evolution, geology, theology, philosophy, literary studies, Biblical studies, history, climatology, or many other theoretical and physical sciences, arts and social sciences, just to defend their rejection of a theist's ridiculous claims? Atheism is the adoption of single position on a single claim. The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim, not on you or me.

Theists need (constantly) to be reminded of that.

In a recent to-ing and fro-ing in the local paper's letters section a contributor claimed that the Bible was true because he had knowledge of 40 excavations which proved the Bible to be historically accurate. Several problems arise as a result of this comment, but chief among them is the fact that even if the Bible was 100% reliable in its account of history and every single detail was absolutely true, nothing about that would be proof of a supernatural entity creating, or controlling, everything!

What on Earth makes him think it does?

If an excavation of, let's say, Tell ed-Dab'a, the home of the Canaanites* in Egypt, revealed intricate details of their religion, supporting every word of the Bible in remarkable detail, why should that prove Yaweh is real? After all, an investigation into Roman ruins does not in any way prove that Julius Caesar was a divine being. No examination of Japanese texts or temples proves that the Emperor is godly! Why do these people make that leap from A to WTF?

I think you can probably sense that I'm somewhat frustrated by these situations. I perhaps need to take a lie down and do an Apache-language crossword puzzle or a 10,000 piece jigsaw, perhaps even nail a jelly to the ceiling. Something less difficult than trying to argue with theists about their own responsibilities in the "god-debate"!

Remember:

onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat

The burden of proof lies on the claimant, not the person denying the claim.

*Excavations revealed that the language of the inhabitants of Tell ed-Dab'a was Semitic, therefore they would have to have been Canaanite. Further evidence of the nature of their religious ideas and burial methods cemented the fact. The idea of a sudden Hyksos invasion, previously accepted by many historians as the true history, but now acknowledged to have been an exaggeration, was attributed to Manethos, an Egyptian historian who must have thought that a sudden attack on Egypt sounded sexier than the centuries of slow migration by Canaanites which actually is known to have happened.

The Evolutionary Road to the Present and Beyond

WARNING: THIS IS A LONG POST. 

READ IT IN BITS, OR GET A COFFEE AND DIG IN!

I am frequently amused, and often appalled, at the Creationists who come on twitter claiming that "evolutionists" are living in a fantasy world if they believe we evolved from a common ancestor to monkeys. Let that sink in for a minute... Creationists, who believe that a magic sky-daddy poofed the universe and the Earth into existence at the same time and created every living thing on the Earth, including us, his special creation, believe that we live in a fantasy world.

Amazing!

We get everything from the classic line born out of sheer ignorance of the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, or TOE for short: "If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"

Oh for flip's sake... really? Almost all bisections of the animal tree occur because of some sort of physical separation. So in our case the most likely scenario is that a large number of the common ancestor we share with chimpanzees got separated from the others in their group... we can speculate how to our heart's content... and their evolution, due to the change in their environment, possibly a once arboreal species now found itself on flat lands instead, came as a result of needing to adapt to the new conditions, or die.

This evolution took millions of years... as did the evolution of the rest of the species on the other side of the divide.

That ancestor is now extinct through necessity. A species cannot evolve en masse and keep the exact traits of its former self. That's just basic evolution 101.

 The other one they now seem to be focusing on is: "There is proof of microevolution and that fits in with our 'theory' of species being able to adapt, but no macroevolution has ever been observed so that cannot be true!"

These, and I'm struggling to not call them imbeciles, cannot [or will not] get their head around the fact that in science the terms macroevolution and microevolution simply have no weight at all. No true scientists use those words. Creationists should know this, because they send enough people on scholarships to proper university biology courses so that they can proclaim that an increasing number of evolutionary biologists [aka their plants] support Creationism. On those courses they are told that these terms are invalid.

On that last point they are correct, though as someone pointed out Pluto takes over 200 years to do one orbit of the Sun, but how can we prove that it does given that we live for a maximum of 120 years?

We extrapolate data from what we see in the laboratory, and these days we use DNA evidence to support the theory. We don't even need the 250,000 fossils we have to prove anything. The DNA supports our theory perfectly.

I often wonder how these people think, but then I read the webpages they point me to and realize that for the most part they don't think. They parrot off the stuff they hear at church, which is in turn parroting stuff that people like Ken Ham dream up between snorts of cocaine and threesomes with hookers in desert road motels. Perhaps I'm being too harsh there, but you know these people aren't straight arrows, and most of them aren't even happy about not being straight.

Think of a a hundred miles... what is a single mile made of? Yards and inches. And each inch is made up of sixteenths. So, we know that a sixteenth exists because we can see it. We know the inch exists, because we can see that too. But, imagine that the hundred miles ahead of us is over bumpy ground, so we lose sight of it every so often. Got it?

If you're happier you can use metric.

OK. So we can look down that road for maybe four hundred yards, then the road dips. We can see the equivalent of say, 2300 years of our history before the road dips for a while and pops up at about the 3500 year mark. This happens over and over along this road.

As an example. We get to see snippets of our past laid out on each of the sixteenths of the inches which make up this road. "Macroevolution" is the same as "microevolution" in the same way that this fictional road is the same as the sixteenths of inches which make it up. As each bit of the road comes into view we get a view of our past and we get to examine that to work out what could possibly have happened in the dips. In the past we had to dig up bits of that history and examine the finds. Such as dinosaurs and human settlements and geological samples. We would search caves, deserts, meadows and mountains trying to find examples of things lost to the earth over vast swathes of time. On that point, just as an aside, we do know how long it takes for earth to cover stuff, so we can roughly date a find according to how far down we had to dig for it.

I know I'm labouring that point a little but you know that not everyone gets this stuff the first time around.

It takes a great deal of skill to work out what we're seeing when we find a dinosaur fossil, or part thereof. It's not guesswork as some of the Creationists will tell you. It's careful examination, recreation and experimentation. As technology has improved we can now use computer data to recreate these creatures, based on careful anatomical examination. We use microscopes to determine all sorts of features unseen to our unaided eyes. Not one single scientist working today gets away with just guessing stuff.

Even Professor Richard Dawkins has to present his work to other scientists for them to hack it to bits when it deserves to be. Yet Creationists laugh at Dawkins for his proposition that there was once a collection of land masses known as Pangaea, and that through a process of separation and drifting the continents moved away from one another to where they are today.

I am really not sure how Creationists can justify their position on this idea of Pangaea, because we know that the continents are still moving today and we measure the distances between them occasionally to make doubly sure. If we work backwards from the now and use the rate and direction of the continents' drift to calculate the position of each in the distant past we get Pangaea. It's really that simple.

Also, another side note, doesn't the Bible refer to land being a single mass which was separated by rivers and oceans? Isn't that a vague reference to Pangaea?

So we're looking at this road and seeing bits of it, trying to work out how everything happened in the dips from the stuff we can see. When we don't know exactly we say things like "this may have happened", or "could" or "perhaps this", and this uncertainty, which is entirely valid and honest in the context of science, seems to set the Creationists on fire. They are satisfied that they have the answer and are arrogantly positive about it: "The evidence is in the book!" they say, demanding that we accept that the Bible is evidence rather than the claim which we all know is the case.

Look, I don't care if the Bible is a million years old, I don't care if it was written by gold-plated angelic goat herders using giant, jet-black heron feather quills and unicorn blood, on the skins of sacrificial eunuchs, there is absolutely nothing in the Bible which can be taken as prima facie evidence for anything. Nothing. The Bible is, and always will be, a claim that the stuff in it happened. Most of it is not supported by evidence of any sort.

Sorry to have to tell you Creationists, but despite what you've been told there are NO corroborative contemporary accounts of anything Jesus is said to have said, or done, and the fact remains that the Bible is now and forever a work of fiction.

That's not blasphemy... that's just a fact.

I'm not even sure that Creationists really understand some of the implications of some of the texts, but I'll deal with that another time. The purpose of this post is just to raise an analogy which explains why scientists have to use uncertain terms to describe past events and evolutionary processes.

Despite our uncertainty over many dips in the road to our past, we do now have a helping hand. We have a traveler which has been to mostly every part of that road and has now finally reached us. I'm not talking about the crocodile, which seems to have been around for a gazillion years. I'm talking about deoxyribonucleic acid [DNA].

DNA has been with organisms for a very long time. It has been handed the baton from RNA and run with it all the way through history. A really interesting part about DNA is that some of its constituent parts may have formed in Red Giant stars. This means that when Creationists are poking us for evidence of abiogenesis on Earth, they're ignoring the idea that we might well have come from outer space! Hee hee!

Building blocks of DNA (adenine, guanine and related organic molecules) may have been formed extraterrestrially in outer space. Complex DNA and RNA organic compounds of life, including uracil,cytosine and thymine, have also been formed in the laboratory under conditions mimicking those found in outer space, using starting chemicals, such as pyrimidine, found in meteorites. Pyrimidine, like polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), the most carbon-rich chemical found in the universe, may have been formed in red giants or in interstellar dust and gas clouds. - Wikipedia [DNA]

Now that we've unlocked the secrets of our own genome we can read the DNA strands with relative ease. To the point where we are now using our knowledge to modify babies DNA to make them immune to certain genetic diseases. Something God forgot to do.
In our DNA we can see markers which we see in other ape species on out side of the divide, but not in other apes from the other side. We can trace our retroviral markers and figure out what changes have been made to the genome to make us happen, and make chimps happen.

This is not guesswork, this is bona fide science using the tools now available to us. Tools which can now see the very building blocks of life in full colour. We can see inside crystals, and pick out previously invisible specks of evidence from all around the world. We now know there was never a global flood. The Noah story is just another myth, which another thing the Creationists cannot accept.
We weren't created as a separate species from the Earth and women aren't the product of a man's rib. For starters there's no way you'll get a an XY being by taking parts of an XX being. Perhaps the other way around could be argued, but not that. Also, why would God create a woman if his goal was to have Adam and his "companion" look after the Garden of Eden? Surely another man would have done just as well, if not better. Men have similar strength profiles, unless you're going to include bodybuilders, or the Basques. Two men could have happily kept that garden in tip top shape forever. A woman was in fact an unnecessary addition.

The whole Creation thing is a load of hooey. For starters there's two versions of it, which Creationists seem to purposely ignore, or claim that the two opposing timelines are versions of the same event. I'd not want one of them defending me in a court that's for sure, if they can't see basic facts like that.

Evolution is a progression, one sixteenth at a time, until we cover the 100s and 1000s of miles into the past. It's like when we look at a prairie rising up to become a tall hill. The upward sweep of the lowlands forces us to ask a question... where does the hill start and the prairie end? Likewise with evolution, when precisely does species A become species B and how? What were the changes and what was the final straw which prevented the two species from being able to interbreed?

Where does the hill begin? Where do humans fit in on the future of the evolutionary tree? What will we become? Will we create a technological supreme being as has been predicted? Will we eventually be ruled over by this TechnoGod? Will the science of the future create what the Creationists have been telling us is already real?

Who knows? We don't... but one thing is for certain, Creationists really have no idea at all.

Vaccine Nuts

I have been moved to write a short post about the ridiculous  anti-vax movement and its claims by a conversation I've had over the last 24 hours with someone on twitter.

I decided to pop over to the sites the chap pointed me to. I don't recommend you visit it because it really is full of nonsense and half-truths, but I thought I'd be able to put to bed some of the psuedoscience contained therein.

The first site is: http://www.whale.to/vaccines/rubella4.html which is a link I clicked on from a few hundred on the main page of this idiotic collection.*

The page lists a few dozen medical studies which investigate illnesses which have appeared to affect people since they were vaccinated against measles/rubella.

The study I have chosen is right up near the top of the list and it concerns the incidence of Immune (form. Idiopathic) Thrombocytopenia Purpura associated with rubella vaccination. The link to the study is broken and PubMed cites, but no longer features, the article itself. However other studies do mention a possible link with the vaccine and ITP, so I thought it was worth giving a little bit of information regarding the condition itself.

ITP is an autoimmune condition which affects around 2 to 5 children out of around 100,000 in any given population, most commonly in pre-school. Its clinical features are a lowered platlet count, a purple or red rash (purpura), significant bruising and persistent nosebleeds. ITP affects children around two or three weeks following a viral infection and in most cases the affects naturally subside within a few weeks to at most six months, less with appropriate treatment. In very rare cases the condition becomes a lifelong problem necessitating frequent blood tests and ongoing review. Patients who suffer ITP in adulthood are often advised to follow a balanced diet and avoid contact sports. Women may find that their menstruation is heavier than average.

Look out for signs of:

A nosebleed which will not stop despite pinching the nose after 30 minutes.
Prolonged bleeding from the gums.
Blood in the poo (stools) or urine.
A heavy blow to the head, especially if the child is unwell afterwards in any way.
Persistent or severe headache.
Sickness (vomiting).
Unexplained drowsiness.

And avoid taking aspirin or ibuprofen.

That's the illness, so on to the problem. The articles I read do mention an association with vaccination with a live vaccine. And this is the source of the confusion.

So, What is a live vaccine?

A live vaccine, most commonly for measles, or rubella, is created by passing a live virus through a nun-human cell culture. We use chicken chicks most often because the virus remains intact, yet loses its ability to infect humans after a relatively few passes through live cell cultures. The advantage here being that our immune responses are triggered by the virus, but it cannot infect us at all.
This immune response is the cause of the ITP problem.

So, is my child at risk of developing ITP from a live rubella vaccine?

The short answer is yes. But, you might be asking why I'd say that if I'm pro-vaccination. Well, it's because I'm an honest chap. Your child is at risk of having an autoimmune response to the rubella vaccine. However, I have as much chance of Kelly Brook suddenly awakening from a dream and declaring her undying love for me by having a sky-writer fly over my house. It could happen, but it's extremely unlikely.

Far more likely is that your child gets infected by the real rubella infection and dies from it.

You see the way rubella works is that between two to three weeks after infection the patient (often a child) starts to develop a pink or red rash which typically spreads downward from the head. Rarely the child will develop symptoms of arthritis, or encephalitis (swelling in the brain) and in very rare cases the child might die.

However the symptoms in children are more often than not very mild, so the real risk is from Congenital Rubella Syndrome... that's when the unborn baby of an unvaccinated mother is infected in utero and develops serious, often life-changing and life-threatening conditions as a result. Rubella vaccination is not indicated for women who are already pregnant, or who intend to become pregnant within four weeks’ time, although CRS has never been reported to be caused by the vaccine.

From 1964-1965, before the development of a vaccine against the disease, a rubella epidemic swept the United States. During that short period there were 12.5 million cases of rubella.

20,000 children were born with CRS:

11,000 were born deaf
3,500 born blind
1,800 born mentally retarded
with 2,100 neonatal deaths

And more than 11,000 abortions occurred as a result of CRS during that time – some a spontaneous result of rubella infection in the mother, and others performed surgically after women were informed of the serious risks of rubella exposure during their pregnancy.

Following an intensive vaccination program rubella was declared to have been eliminated from the USA in 2004, and from the rest of the Americas in 2009.

So, why all the fuss? Why are we vaccinating against an illness which is known to no longer be relevant? Well, you see, there are a number of people who still do not vaccinate their children, or themselves, and because of the herd immunity generated by the millions of others who do, they remain safe... until of course they come into contact with other children who have the illness. Then the trouble starts.

In Europe in 2010, there were 30,367 cases reported with 21 confirmed measles-related deaths. Of those cases 21,864 occurred in Bulgaria, with 17 deaths.

Here we have to compare a small sample of clinical trials indicating that between 2 to 5 out of every 100,000 children can get ITP, with a minute number of people going on to die from the disease with an even smaller number getting it as a result of a measles vaccination, with a recent known sample of 30,367 people being diagnosed with measles across 32 countries resulting in 88 serious complications requiring hospital treatment and one death.

So... and I'm no mathematician here but I'll give it a go... that's a 0.00005% chance of developing a mild rash from the vaccine, or a 0.00077% chance of dying from the illness that the vaccine prevents.

That means that on my very un-scientific poll:

YOU ARE SIXTEEN TIMES MORE LIKELY TO DIE OF THE DISEASE THAN SUFFER SOME VERY MILD  SYMPTOMS FROM THE VACCINATION!

Another uncomfortable fact is that in ALL the recent outbreaks across the globe, in the USA, Israel, The Philippines, Australia, New Zealand, The Netherlands, Bulgaria, Japan, the UK, France and Romania occurred in communities where people were against vaccination, for religious reasons, or simply through stupidity.

So the message... and I want to make this abundantly clear... is no matter what you've been told about vaccinations, from whatever dubious half-truth spilling, short-sighted, dumb-ass, no-good, un-patriotic website that you've chosen to get your information...

ANTI-VAXXERS... YOU ARE WRONG!

Vaccines are safe.
Vaccines save lives.
And the next life you save by getting yourself and your children vaccinated might well be your own!




*I'm not going to endorse that page by making it a hyperlink on my blog... not in a million years!

Evolution, Creationism and the Argument From Authority Fallacy

Hello again. I'm writing this post because of another chat I had recently with a Creationist on twitter. It seems this keeps on happening.

The conversation took many strands, which is never ideal, but I'll try to summarize each one as best I can. 

One of the strands included a look at the Argument From Authority Fallacy (AFAF). The chap kindly directed me to a site which details the whole fallacy in detail.

The AFAF goes like this:

1. Person A is (or is assumed/claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes a claim C about S.
3. Therefore C must be true.

Unfortunately the chap I was chatting to failed to acknowledge much of the fallacy's components in his own argument.

One of the sites included a refutation of vestigiality. According to Dr. Jerry A Coyne, who is an authority on evolution, vestigiality is "diagnosed not by its usefulness, but because it no longer has the function for which it originally evolved" ['Why Evolution Is True' (2009)] 

Dr Coyne goes on to describe the fact that humans still have an extensor coccygis muscle attached to our coccyx. This is the exact same muscle which is found in monkeys and other mammals which have tails. In humans the muscle has no function despite it still being attached to our skeleton.

In the article on the Creationist site highlighted above, written by Dr Don Batten and Dr Jonathan Sarfati they state that: "it is in principle not possible to prove that an organ is useless, because there is always the possibility that a use may be discovered in the future." This is clearly not true of the extensor coccygis muscle, unless of course humans have yet to grow tails. To be honest I wasn't sure I was inclined to read any more of this article, but I struggled on.

The next point to be raised was about why emus and ostriches are flightless despite having wings. The article suggests that: 

1. they derived from smaller birds which could once fly (which is one form of evolution the Drs claim is acceptable within the Creationist model.)
2. they do have a function other than flight.
3. the Creator uses the same model for all birds regardless, and therefore all birds have wings.

Dr Coyne does not disagree with the second point at all. In fact he explains the exact same thing from an evolutionary standpoint. Ostriches use their wings in courtship displays (as do other birds), and to maintain balance, (as do other birds), and to threaten its enemies, (as do other birds.) So in fact the ostrich has wings which perform all of the function of other birds' wings except flight... perhaps then  the problem isn't that the wings are badly adapted for flight, but that the rest of the bird isn't... but that's just my wacky idea!

All flightless birds have wings, but the kiwi has only tiny wings buried deep under its feathers which are just remnants of their flying ancestors' wings. Totally useless for any of the above adaptations.

When Drs Batten and Sarfati try to claim that the fact that a vestigial organ, or limb, undermines evolutionary theory they miss the point entirely. "Evolutionary theory doesn't say that vestigial characters have no function" says Dr Coyne, " It is vestigial not because it's functionless, but because it no longer performs the function for which it evolved... Indeed we expect that ancestral features will evolve new uses: that's just what happens when evolution builds new traits from old ones."

When you admit, as the Creationists do that the wings of the ostrich now have new functions besides flight aren't they saying that these changes are adaptations, and aren't adaptations part of the evolutionary process?

Further in the article the Creationists claim that it is only possible to devolve and not evolve. That means that in the Creationist model it is only possible for organisms to lose function and not evolve new traits which gain function. They argue that once a bird has devolved to become flightless it cannot re-evolve to regain its flight. This is possibly true. I personally don't think I know of any animal which has regained past lost abilities, but then I know that the process of evolution only works in the direction of conferring an advantage to the organism within its current surroundings. So if a bird needs to feed on the ground then it is likely to become flightless. Unless its source of food learns to live arboreally, or fly, the bird is unlikely to ever need to go back to flying! That's just how evolution works.

It's worth going back to the AFAF for a second and take a look at the two sides I've presented here. Dr Jerry Coyne holds a PhD in Evolutionary Biology which he gained from Harvard, one of the USA's premier universities and has authored over 115 refereed scientific papers. He is an authority on evolutionary biology. Now let's see what the other side looks like shall we?

Well... Dr Batten is a horticulturalist, and Dr Sarfati is a physical chemist. Neither of them have any qualifications in evolutionary biology and so are not authorities in the field of evolutionary biology.

So to quote the AFAF web page sent to me by the Creationist on twitter:

"This sort of reasoning (AFAF) is only fallacious when the person is not a legitimate authority in a particular context... If a person makes a claim about some subject outside of his area(s) of expertise, then the person is not an expert in that context. Hence, the claim in question is not backed by the required degree of expertise and is not reliable. It is also very important to note that expertise in one area does not automatically confer expertise in another. For example, being an expert physicist does not automatically make a person an expert on morality or politics." [my emphasis]

So the Creationist has already fallen foul of his own accusation aimed at me that, since I accept the truth of evolution I am committing the Argument From Authority Fallacy, and yet in actual fact, since the authorities I accept my information from are experts in their field I am not committing that fallacy at all... I am merely accepting the word of someone whose accomplishments in the context I am defending are beyond doubt. This is a valid exercise.

I was sent another link to an Answers In Genesis page the author  Dr David Menton (an anatomist not a paleornithologist - see above AFAF notes on relevant authorities) writes that Alan Feduccia, a noted paleornithologist has refuted the idea that birds evolved from therapod dinosaurs but if you go back a bit in the article you'll find this:"While evolutionists now agree that birds are related in some way to dinosaurs, they are divided over whether birds evolved from some early shared ancestor of the dinosaurs within the archosauria (which includes alligators, pterosaurs, plesiosaurs, ichthyosaurs, and thecodonts) or directly from advanced theropod dinosaurs (bipedal meat-eating dinosaurs, such as the wellknown Tyrannosaurus rex). " [my emphasis]

So... the article goes on to refute the line of thinking which brings us to an evolution from therapods, and does so quite eloquently and rather convincingly I have to say. Me being no expert and all that. However, I can read, and I noticed that the AIG writer rather skimmed over the line of thinking proposed by one, Alan Feduccia... where have we seen that name?... that birds are evolved from archosaurs. In fact, Prof Feduccia's inclusion in the AIG article is a classic tactic of the Creationist movement. They find the current widely accepted theories and find the one person amongst the throng who disagrees, then elevates them to great heights as the ultimate authority on the issue at hand. Feduccia is in the minority, but his ideas might have merit. Unfortunately for the Creationists Feduccia's main argument is that therapods and birds have a common ancestor in the archosaur, so that means whichever way you look at it modern dinosaurs (birds) did evolve from earlier species, the only contention is which one?

Several times during the AIG article we are told that dinosaurs are reptiles, which is actually a misleading statement, since most of them did not exhibit characteristics that are particularly reptilian at all. It makes you think of scaly, cold-blooded creatures with four legs and flicking tongues. However, most dinosaurs had skin, not scales, walked on two limbs not four and were likely warm-blooded and highly socialized. So comparisons between reptile lungs and avian lungs, and between scales and feathers are invalid. Birds are recognized today as being bona fide dinosaurs by the vast majority of ornithologists and paleontologists. The evidence is there for those who truly want to find it.

So, atheists/skeptics beware when looking at sites such as Answers In Genesis, because the tactics are to seem very technical and scientific, but what they don't tell you is more important than what they do tell you.. and more important still is who is telling you! When talking about the Argument From Authority Fallacy the theists' side of the fence are almost certain to be the biggest culprits, so when they tell you that you are the fallacious one, remember that you are far more likely to find sources appropriate to the argument/discussion than they are.

Thanks for reading. Please comment on this if I've missed anything or made any obvious mistakes.

                                                           ______________________

"Why Evolution Is True" by Dr Jerry A. Coyne was published in 2009 and is available at all good book shops.

Discussing Some Arguments For God

In this post I'd like to take a look at two arguments in the God-debate, the a posteriori argument from contingency and the a priori argument from necessity.

If you believe God exists you may be asking yourself why many other people do not notice him. So we should look at what there is about God which could reasonably lead us to notice him.

God is said to be an omnipotent being, so we could argue that not only should he just happen to exist, but he should have to exist. If his existence is happenstance (a contingency) then his existence is dependent on other factors, or is a freak one-off event, whereas if he is all-powerful and eternal then his existence rests solely on his own nature so that he must exist or everything else fails.

What is the essential difference between a contingent truth and a necessary truth?

Well, as the above statement about God shows, a contingent truth relies on other factors being true. For instance, you and I are contingent truths. For us to exist we rely on our parents bringing us into existence, and they on their parents in turn. When we look all the way back through history we see that even the Earth is reliant on several billion prior events for its formation to have occurred. It is a contingent truth. A necessary truth is different. The fact that the number 19 falls between 18 and 20 is a necessary truth, as is the fact that it is a prime number.

As a rule we do not encounter necessary truths in our day-to-day lives. They tend to be more abstract entities such as numbers which by themselves can have no direct impact on our world. God is not supposed to be an abstract entity. He is supposed to completely different to everything else we experience in our lives. He is an "other". Yet some people claim that such a being must exist against all the evidence to the contrary.


The Argument from Contingency

In the 17th Century there lived a German mathematician and philosopher named Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Leibniz is famously thought to have developed calculus at the same time, yet separately, as Sir Isaac Newton. and invented component parts to the world's first calculators, As part of his work in philosophy however, Leibniz developed seven principles promoted by Greek philosophers such as Aristotle and Anaximander, one of which was the Principle of Sufficient Reason which states that "there must be a sufficient reason for anything to exist, for any event to occur , for any truth to obtain." Nothing is, therefore, without reason.

Leibniz admitted contingent truths on the basis of there being an infinite series of events to which God alone had knowledge of all but the final event, since the series is infinite after all. God, he said, must exist in order to explain the sequence of contingent truths leading up to the cause of our existence and beyond.

Leibniz was never tasked to answer whether his model included many gods working together, or a creator of the God he claimed must exist for us to, or whether the God continued to exist after we came to be, or whether the God he had in mind had any of the characteristics of the gods we have imagined over our species' lifetime.

Also, if the Universe's contents are contingent is there a reason to believe that the Universe itself is contingent? After all a car's parts cannot move along the road themselves, but together they can. Even further, if it is true that the Universe is in fact contingent why should we assume that the reason it exists is anything other than an accident?


The Argument from Necessity (the Ontological Argument)

The argument from necessity is ontological; it centers around what we know must exist. We do not need to prove the nature of everything in the world to prove the existence of God in the same way that we do not need to examine all of our surroundings to define the necessary properties of triangles. René Descartes, the philosopher famous for the line "I think, therefore I am" put forward an argument from necessity for the existence of God. Put simply this is it:

1. God has all of the perfections.
2. Existence is a perfection.
3. Therefore God must exist.

In order to decide whether the conclusion of an argument is true we usually have to make certain that the first and second premises of the syllogism are themselves true. In this case the first assumption is true and one could argue that the second is also, therefore we must conclude, must we not, that the conclusion is also true. So, why does this feel wrong?

Because it is.

What if you were to substitute "God" in the first line for "The Perfect Dragon", would the same conclusion, that of its existence not also be true? Since we all know that dragons do not exist*, and perfect ones most certainly do not, we know immediately that this argument is flawed.

Modern atheists will be familiar with the "work" of William Lane Craig, possibly our most famous proponent of the ontological argument. His more long-winded version of it goes something like this:

1. It is possible for a maximally great being to exist.
2. If a maximally great being does exist then it exists in a possible world.
3. If 2 is true then it exists in every possible world.
4. If 3 is true then it is possible that it exists in our world.
5. If 4 is true then it exists in our world.
6. Therefore a maximally great being exists.
7. God is a maximally great being, therefore God exists.

Why does Craig assume that this "maximally great being" is God? Well, this comes from the work of St Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th century. Anselm proposed that if one could conceive of the greatest ever being, then that being would be God. Whatever our imaginations could cope with, at the extreme edge of our thoughts of greatness would lie the essence of what God is. If we imagine another yet greater being then that being would be God.

The one flaw (among many) that is immediately obvious in Anselm's argument is it relies on what we can conceive as being the greatest ever  being, but as with all things which we can think of as the greatest ever, such as numbers, we can always add a bit more to the equation to gain a yet greater whole. It is therefore possible for a "greatest conceivable being" to exist in our Universe, but a greater being of which we cannot conceive, to exist in another yet greater Universe. If our Universe is an accidental by-product of the bigger Universe the whole thing falls apart.

Hence Craig's replacement of "greatest ever conceivable" with "maximally great". Craig's argument is no stronger than Descartes' original. In fact if anything, with the new parameters it seems to fall even flatter. Yes, it is possible for a god to exist, and yes it could exist in a possible world, but not necessarily in all worlds, nor in ours... so are we done here yet?

In neither argument for the existence of God presented here is the case proven conclusively, so the arguments only propose possibilities in a nice-sounding philosophical package. One says that a contingent Universe must have a central non-contingent overseer, or cause, whilst the other assumes the possibility of there being a God as proof that there is one.

So are we convinced by either of these? Personally, I would have to say no. So it's back to the drawing-board for you Mr Craig.

                                                         ____________________        

Neither of these arguments make an ounce of sense when you spend a few minutes reading this blog about it... although, that could be down to my inability to properly present the arguments in the first place of course. As always, feel free to send any corrections. Thank you for taking the time to read my blog... it means a great deal to me.



*Discounting Komodo Dragons of course.