On Republican Gaffes, God Sanctioned Rape, and the Dangers of Divine Plans

Well what do you know, another month goes by, and another Republican politician in the United States confounds the public with his views on rape. Last time it was Todd Akin who showed his ignorance of human physiology when he asserted that women physically cannot fall pregnant if it is ‘legitimate rape’, which then has people wondering what the corollary to this term could possibly be (illegitimate rape?). This time we have Richard Mourdock from Indiana, who dropped this interesting quote during a debate:

“I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realise that life is that gift from God, and I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something God intended to happen.”

Mourdock is an anti-abortion candidate, which is an odd enough concept that begs us to consider the converse side; a pro-abortion candidate. But in this instance he was outlining why he believes that abortions performed after rape should be outlawed, and the only time such procedures be allowed is when the mother’s life is in jeopardy.

Now I find the abortion issue to be a contentious one at the best of times, but moving past the inherent grey areas that this inevitably invokes, I can’t help but think that the backlash faced by Mourdock because of his words is a somewhat undeserved and hypocritical reaction by a lot of people who would generally consider themselves a Christian.

Don’t get me wrong here; I think that the idea of a divinely sanctioned rape reaches for the heights of absurdity. But that being said, the view he is expressing is far from inconsistent with mainstream Christians thought.

How many times, upon hearing some bad news, or even in general discussions with Christians, do you hear the plan of a god invoked as the ersatz explanation. We may find it hard to face the capricious nature of things such as cancer striking down people seemingly at random, and thus hope to find solace in some reason for this happening. But the fact of the matter is that some things in this world are not only beyond our control, but also beyond meaningful interpretation.
By this I mean that not everything has a purpose, and though it might seem easier to bear the hand that life has dealt us if we are willing to take on faith that everything has a purpose, this view not only has the bulk of history working against it (why I ask you was the holocaust necessary?), but it also has a lot of dangerous implications.

If you do take the view that a god does have a plan, and that we are all slowly meandering through life on paths set in advance by the almighty, then you have to accept the full implications of this position. If there is a plan, then things such as rape, cancer, murder, the holocaust and so on; all these things must be a part of this plan. After all, if they weren’t a part of the plan, then surely they would have had a massive butterfly effect on things by now.

Not only do I find the divine plan way of thinking unsatisfactory, and uncaring, but I also see the inherent dangers in living your life on what is essentially an amusement park ride; where you have no control, and are just along for the trip.

Something that can be used to retroactively permit and explain any action can also be used in the present to justify any future actions. This is where the danger lies. Accepting things that have happened as a part of a god’s plan strips you of any responsibility of your own; it leads to fatalism, and to an acceptance of whatever situations arise.

The idea of a divine plan is untenable at the best of times, and dangerous at the worst. It can offer consolation, but as we have seen in the case of Mr Mourdock, it can also offer a twisted sense of justification and acceptance after the fact.

Let me know what you think in the comments, especially if you are a Christian (or otherwise) who hold to the view that everything happens for a reason.

Cheers,

MM

Dawkins v Pell: My Commentary

I have been away for the Easter holidays (which in some part explains my lack of blogging lately), but was delighted to find that as I came home Monday night, there was to be a televised sparring between the venerable Richard Dawkins, and the........ well, and George Pell.

It is always great to see Dawkins on the fly. So often news reports depict him as a militant atheist, who is rude, or arrogant, and attacks religious belief with wanton disregard. Then when I watch his appearances, I am always reminded of just how polite and British the man is. His worst retorts after all are generally along the lines of an Oxfordian “utter nonsense”, or “patently absurd”.

If this is considered the epitome of a rude atheist, then I must be a positively abhorrent one.

During the show I was surprised at how flimsy Pell arguments were. No doubt I was always going to come out in support of Dawkins, but I had expected there to be more formidable arguments either for religious belief, or else against atheism. Yet I found myself being able to predict the weak arguments before they were pulled out of what must be quite a tattered bag of apologist tropes.

Hitler was an atheist, or social Darwinist; therefore evolution can’t be a good thing. We evolved from Neanderthals. If there were no justice after death, that would be very nice, therefore, there must be. Darwin was a theist. And so on.

All in all I had a great time watching the show, and though I had promised myself that I wouldn’t go into a twitter overload, I ended up tweeting around 22 times during the fifty-odd minute show. Not too bad an outcome though, as I managed to get one of my tweets up on screen to be seen by 863,000 Australians, which is around 4% of the population, so I am happy with that. It also got me a sizable new chunk of followers on twitter, and it is always nice to know that your crazy twitter rants are appreciated.

Then as I decided to write a blog on this episode of Q&A, I quickly found my initial thoughts on the program spiralling out of control into an almost blow by blow account of the interaction. So rather than make this solely a reflective piece, I have decided to make it a sort of running commentary of my favourite bits of the night, supplemented with quotes from the transcript.

This ended up running into around five thousand words (I remember uni days when such a word count would have killed me), but I hope it is somewhat entertaining for those of you who watched the show, and perhaps even those who missed it.
So yes it is rather longer than my usual posts, and doesn't have as many interesting pictures to look at, but it is just a culmination of a lot of stuff i wanted to get off my chest after watching the show.

Here goes.

The first question was quite a stock standard one, regarding whether or not an atheist can essentially be a good person. It is one often brought out in these debates, but also one that most people know the answer to from either side; yes, but with some conditions.

Dawkins points his response that “it is true that Christianity has adopted many of the best values of humanity but they don't belong to Christianity or any other religion”, and goes on to point out the bad things espoused in the Bible, both New Testament and Old. Then Pell counters with a quote which seems to me a bit too understanding of Christianity’s nature as a created religion, not a metaphysical truth:

“We’re Christians, we're New Testament people. There was an evolution in the Old Testament. There are some awful things there. It developed. The notion of God was purified as it went through the Old Testament.”

It seems odd for him to be talking of the notion of God changing, and of parts of the Bibles teachings being awful.

Now on to audience question number two, where things start to get moving along quicker:

“Religion is precisely often blamed for being the root of war and conflict but what about all the good it has done for society. God-centred religion has been the birth place of schools, universities, hospitals and countless developments in science. Richard, if you believe the human drive to seek the truth and to constantly improve ourselves is merely a mechanism for survival, then what’s the point and why should I bother? ”

This second question was a bit all over the place. First it is talking about remembering all the good things that religion has done rather than focusing on the bad things, then after simply stating that as if it should be a powerful point, the questioner quickly darts aside and asks ‘what’s the point’ if we are products of evolution.

I mean, perhaps a pertinent question, but where is the lead up, and what’s more; where is the alternative? It is all well and good to say, ‘what is the point if we are the product of evolution’, but perhaps if you are arguing for religion as the alternative, you should at least offer a reason why us originating from a god’s creation would imbue us with any more purpose, beyond that of merely being created by a god.

As Dawkins said “We have to find our own purposes in life, which are not derived directly from our scientific history”, which I agree with completely because I think that any purpose we want to derive for ourselves should depend on our own qualities and attributes, not just our physical origins.

Pell isn’t brought into the debate here, which was a pity if we wanted to hear an alternative purpose of life. But nonetheless, the third question quickly followed as a bit of an extension of this:

“Okay, my question for you today is: without religion, where is the basis of our values and in time, will we perhaps revert back to Darwin's idea of survival of the fittest? ”

Having read a lot of Dawkins writings, I knew he would have an answer for this which really seems like common sense to anyone who understands science’s place in our lives. That answer is simply that Darwinian principles explain how we got here; they are a physical law and shouldn’t be used to determine how we run our society any more than the theory of gravity should. Dawkins says this, and states emphatically that he would definitely not like to live by Darwinian principles.

The discussion then went towards science, and how it can tell us about why we are here. Pell, being a self stylised authority on why we are here, leapt on this chance, which lead to this little exchange:

GEORGE PELL: Well, it’s interest because I think in the space of about two minutes, Richard has said two different things, one of which is that science can't tell us why we're here and then in the next minute, trying to say that it does.
RICHARD DAWKINS: No. No. I said it can tell us why we're here.
GEORGE PELL: It can't.
RICHARD DAWKINS: Well, I simply contradict you in that case.

Here we begin to see the germ of a core misunderstanding between Pell and Dawkins as one talks about why we are here in a sense of ‘what is our purpose’, and the other talks about why we are here in a sense of ‘what caused us to be’.

Dawkins put it nicely, and with his trademark scientific air:

“Why we exist, you're playing with the word “why” there. Science is working on the problem of the antecedent factors that lead to our existence. Now, “why” in any further sense than that, why in the sense of purpose is, in my opinion, not a meaningful question. You cannot ask a question like “Why do mountains exist?” as though mountains have some kind of purpose. What you can say is what are the causal factors that lead to the existence of mountains and the same with life and the same with the universe.”

This is the age old ‘science can answer how, but not why’ argument, where those in favour of this rhetorical side step fail to elucidate why there must be a why, as opposed to simply just a how.

Then, at around the 9 minute mark I believe it was, Pell proved himself to be quite a premature invoker of Godwin’s Law when he took what is considered a fatal step in internet arguments, and committed a Redictio Ad Hitlerum:

“[...] it’s not Maggie Thatcher who was in the epitome or the personification of social Darwinism. It’s Hitler and Stalin. [........] Because it is the struggle for survival, the strong take what they can and the weak give what they must and there is nothing to restrain them and we have seen that in the two great atheist movements of the last century.”

Not only is this a premature appeal to Hitler, but also the classic mistake of counting him, and his Nazi cronies, as vanguards for atheism. Dawkins of course being a veteran of these unctuous arguments was quick to label this as ridiculous and again pointed out that:

“That’s exactly why I said that I despise Darwinian natural selection as a motto for how we should live. I tried to say we should not live by Darwinian principles but Darwinian principles explain how we got here and why we exist in the scientific sense”

At this point we reach the first of a few instances where a group of the audience flat out laughed at sporadic points during Dawkins explanations, to which he would ask the audience ‘Why is that funny?’ but never got a direct response. The laughter in this case was caused by the statement from Dawkins:

“Now, Cardinal, you said it’s part of human nature to want to ask the question why in the sense of purpose. It may very well be part of human nature but that doesn't make it a valid question.”

They laughed, Dawkins asked why, but I don’t think he got a response.

As this went further, and Dawkins further explained why he believes that a question like “What is the purpose of the universe?” is a silly question, Pell interjected to say “I think it’s a very poignant and real question to ask, “Why is there suffering?””.

Well it may be poignant, and real; but it has nothing to do with the question they were talking about!

On talking about suffering Dawkins later pointed out that “it is a natural part of the living condition. It is a natural part of Darwinian natural selection, which is one of the reasons why I was so keen to say that I didn't want to live by Darwinian principles.”

Again a clear explanation of what he believes to be the place of science and evolution in human affairs, but one which is constantly ignored by his detractors.

Next a question was directed toward Dawkins about his use of the label ‘atheist’ despite the fact that he has self-identified as being an agnostic in the past. Even Tony Jones seemed uncharacteristically uninformed about this distinction, but Dawkins seemed to explain it rather succinctly (with examples from his book The God Delusion), and a nice reference to the Easter season we find ourselves in:

“I live my life as though there is no God but any scientist of any sense will not say that they positively can disprove the existence of anything. I cannot disprove the existence of the Easter Bunny and so I am agnostic about the Easter Bunny. It’s in the same respect that I am agnostic about God”

Though I was happy to see the whole agnostic/atheist thing brought up with regard to Dawkins beliefs, I couldn’t help but think it could have been handled a bit better. I am of the ilk that describes ourselves as agnostic-atheists; we don’t believe in god, but we also don’t claim to know that there is no god. The label agnostic can be applied to any number of propositions, as Dawkins points out, as it deals with claims of knowledge. Atheist however can only be applied to one proposition, namely ones beliefs regarding deities. It deals only with these beliefs, and not the nature of whether or not the validity of such beliefs can be known with absolute certainty.

It is in this way that I think it is pertinent that we use the label atheist to describe ourselves, rather than just agnostic, as it gives a true indication of what our beliefs are, not just how certain we can claim to be regarding them.

The discussion then went towards what proofs would sway Dawkins mind, to which he had no direct answer, and was open in admitting this and the questions tricky nature. Tony then asked Pell whether he would be able to provide Dawkins with some of the proof he would require, to which Pell replied:

“No, because I think he only accepts proof that is rooted in sense experience. In other words he excludes the world of metaphysics, say the principle of contradiction, and he excludes the possibility of arguments that don't go against reason but go beyond it.”

Arguments that go beyond reason....... I don’t know what to make of this.

Tony then presses Pell a bit further with a great question regarding why this god would choose a small group of Jews 2,000 years ago, and make no subsequent proof after that. George Pell then digs himself a nice little hole to sit in when he remarked that the Jews were intellectual inferiors to their contemporaries, which led to a bit of ribbing by the host:

GEORGE PELL: They weren't intellectually the equal of either the Egyptians or the...
TONY JONES: Intellectually?
GEORGE PELL: Intellectually, morally...
TONY JONES: How can you know intellectually?
GEORGE PELL: Because you see the fruits of their civilisation. Egypt was the great power for thousands of years before Christianity. Persia was a great power, Caldia. The poor - the little Jewish people, they were originally shepherds. They were stuck. They’re still stuck between these great powers.
TONY JONES: But that’s not a reflection of your intellectual capacity, is it, whether or not you're a shepherd?
GEORGE PELL: Well, no it’s not but it is a recognition it is a reflection of your intellectual development, be it like many, many people are very, very clever and not highly intellectual but my point is...
TONY JONES: I’m sorry, can I just interrupt? Are you including Jesus in that, who was obviously Jewish and was of that community?
GEORGE PELL: Exactly.
TONY JONES: So intellectually not up to it?

Bazinga!

The next viewer question was my favourite, so I shall show it in its entirety, as well as link to it:

“Question for Richard Dawkins. The big bangers believe that once there was nothing, then suddenly, poof, the universe was created from a big bang. If I have nothing in the palm of my hand, close my fingers, speak the word bang, then open my fingers again, still I find there is nothing there. I ask you to explain to us in layman's terms how it is that something as enormous at the universes came from nothing? ”

First of all, Big Bangers; I love this label.

I like his little experiment, and the challenge he puts forth as if he has shook the foundations of the Big Bang theory, but at the end of the day this guys argument about closing and opening his hand is as laughable as the old ‘Peanut butter proves that there can be no abiogenesis’ argument.

I still cant believe this guy is serious.....

I also have to ponder why it is he thinks that the enormity of the universe would impact on its ability to come from nothing. This is particularly important to note as after all, the Big Bang theory tells us that the universe was once super condensed, and as such was not all that enormous (though still contained all the energy/mater we have today apparently).

People want a simple answer for the beginning of the universe, and then balk at the mention of anything that might sound a bit beyond their understanding. If an answer cannot be understood by them intuitively, then they don’t believe it has any weight as an explanation, This may well be a good argument if you think you live in a world where such explanation usually are intuitive. But talk to any physicist and you will soon find that much of the way the world works isn’t intuitive; just Google quantum mechanics and you will see how far the rabbit hole goes.

When the discussion continues and talk of new theories regarding the appearance of the universe gets moving, Pell attacks some of Dawkins arguments, and invokes what must be one of the biggest cop out arguments in the arsenal of the Christian apologist:

“he dumbs down God and he soups up nothing. He continually talks as though God is some sort of upmarket figure within space and time”

‘Within Space and time’ is the important part there. You will constantly hear people saying that their god is outside of space and time, and thus not subject to its ways, but you never hear an explanation of what this means, and how it can be reconciled with other forms of thinking prevalent in their theology. For instance, if this god is outside of space and time, how can he create a universe? The very act of creation requires time to already exist, after all you can’t have a ‘before and after’ the universe, without having time. And you can’t have a universe, without having space-time.

Regarding the outside of space and time excuse, Dawkins replied:

“it is no good invoking Thomas Aquinis and saying that God is defined as outside time and space. That’s just a cop out.”

FYI, I didn’t realise Dawkins phrased this almost exactly as I did above, but I am nonetheless pleased by it.

I think some more direct audience participation with Dawkins would have been good. After all, so many times when the audience laughed at something he said, Dawkins wanted to know why it was funny, but received no explanation. It made him seem more offended by their laughter rather than genuinely curious and ready to engage, as I believe he was.

This second bit of audience participation was spurred on by this remark:

RICHARD DAWKINS: You can dispute exactly what is meant by nothing but whatever it is it’s very, very simple.

(AUDIENCE LAUGH)

RICHARD DAWKINS: Why is that funny?

GEORGE PELL: Well, I think it’s a bit funny to be trying to define nothing.

Of course you do George, because you are not a philosopher or a scientist, so you don’t have to define or describe things; you are a theologian, and as such simply have to interpret things within your own stationary worldview. The Cardinal talks as if definitions in a philosophical or rational debate aren’t worth ruminating over.

The audience members who were snickered here no doubt consider such things equally absurd, because like most philosophical debates worth having, there is an instinctive answer that some are just willing to accept. We think it is silly to try and define nothing, because we have our own understanding of the word built up since we were a child. Much like if people are asked to define what happy is, or sad, they will probably shy from the task, because rather than question their own personal understanding of the concepts, it is easier to treat them as self-evident truths and be done with it. Perhaps more pragmatic, but by no means philosophically satisfying.

Next came one of Pell’s biggest slip-ups which unfortunately I believe wasn’t properly debunked. That is Pell’s insistence that Charles Darwin was a theist.

The exchange went like this:

GEORGE PELL: Darwin was a theist because he said he couldn’t believe that the immense cosmos and all the beautiful things in the world came about either by chance or out of necessity. He said, “I have to be ranked as a theist.

RICHARD DAWKINS: That just not true.

GEORGE PELL: Excuse me it’s...

RICHARD DAWKINS: It’s just plain not true.

GEORGE PELL: It’s on page 92 of his auto biography. Go and have a look.

Dawkins displays his incredulity at this falsehood, but as the discussion is quickly moved along by Jones; there is no real room for rebuttal. But there is room on this blog for all manner of things I would wish to rant about, and so here I shall!

In a sense Pell is right about Darwin having been a theist, however not in the sense he actually wants people to believe. Darwin was a theist, much like he was a baby: but then he grew up. He was a theist, but then he lost this faith, and the quote in his autobiography as reference by George was clearly talking about beliefs Darwin had had, not ones he maintained at the time of writing. In fact if he had only read a few pages further, to page 94, he would have read Darwin affirming himself as an agnostic, and then elucidating just how one can go about living according to this, without recourse for a god to explain things.

The night of the show I looked up page 92 of his autobiography and got a nice link to Darwin’s online writings. However if you search for a similar thing today, you will find links to heaps of blogs discussing the very thing I am discussing now; the use of this by Pell on Q&A. The misinformation patrols are quick at work for our religious friends however, as one Catholic site is already exclaiming “Cardinal Pell shows up Richard Dawkins ignorance about Charles Darwin”.

Then, having failed to understand the history of Darwin’s religious beliefs despite the fact that he was claiming to have read his autobiography (which is a nice read and like all of Darwin's work, available for free online), Pell exposed his lack of understanding with regard to mankind’s evolutionary history with this startling exchange, which seemed to enliven Dawkins from his jetlag:

TONY JONES: Sorry, can I just bring you, in a sense, to the point of the question? Do you accept that humans evolved from apes?

GEORGE PELL: Yeah, probably. From Neanderthals, yes. Whether...

RICHARD DAWKINS: From Neanderthals?

GEORGE PELL: Probably.

RICHARD DAWKINS: Why from Neanderthals?

GEORGE PELL: Well, who else would you suggest?

RICHARD DAWKINS: Neanderthals were our cousins. We’re not descended from them and we’re both descended from...

GEORGE PELL: These are extant cousins? Where will I find a Neanderthal today if they're my cousins?

RICHARD DAWKINS: They’re not extant, they’re extinct.

GEORGE PELL: Exactly. That’s my point.

RICHARD DAWKINS: Your point is that because they're extinct they can't be our cousins?

GEORGE PELL: I really am not much fussed.

RICHARD DAWKINS: That’s very clear.

GEORGE PELL: Something in the evolutionary story seems to have come before humans. A lot of people say it’s the Neanderthal.

Sure perhaps it is a bit much to attack the Bishop for this mistake; after all he has no expertise in the matter whatsoever. But nevertheless, Pell should have just pushed it aside by saying, ‘oh well, I don’t really know much about mans evolutionary history’, rather than trying to argue about the relevance of this other species of human being extant, or cousins. He even goes on to state how Neanderthals weren’t the equivalent of humans because they didn’t draw on cave walls, even though there is new evidence that they in fact did do just that.

As the discussion continued about mans evolution and the implications of this toward those religions that believe man in unique and has a soul, I think there was further evidence showing Pell’s ignorance of modern evolutionary theory. For example he shows a misunderstanding of the continuous nature of species here:

“so we can't say exactly when there was a first human but we have to say if there are humans there must have been a first one”

There doesn’t have to be a first human at all, just because there is a human now. There is gradual change, so that no parent and offspring would be so dissimilar as to be labelled members of different species, yet these gradual changes would nevertheless compound over time to inevitably change the species (Dawkins in fact goes over this briefly, but adroitly, in a later segment, to which Pell inanely replies “if there is no first person we’re not humans”).

In talking about these ‘first people’ Pell made some headlines (virtual ones at least) in this article when he referred to Adam and Eve as mythology, and not fact.

When he started going over this mythology, Pell highlighted one of the things that I believe is a major difference between a theist’s mindset versus that of an atheist’s:

“[...] the key to the whole of universe, the really significant thing, are humans”

A very self centred view of the nature of existence I would think. What do you know, it is all about me after all. It’s like Phillip J Fry once said: “So I really am important? How I feel when I'm drunk is correct?“

“and, [...], it is a very sophisticated mythology to try to explain the evil and suffering in the world.”

I will just say quickly about the above that I don’t believe it is very sophisticated to assert that sins can be inherited, and that people are born, as Hitchens used to quote "created sick, commanded to be well”.

A while later when the talk again moves towards Richard’s expertise in science my favourite moment of the night appears. Take a look:

George Pell: You have to reason about the facts of science, ask whether you believe the suggestion that, you know, random selection is sufficient and also most evolutionary biologists today don't believe that.

RICHARD DAWKINS: Don't believe what?

GEORGE PELL: They don't believe in random so this crude fundamentalist version of random selection that you propose

RICHARD DAWKINS: I do not propose it and I strongly deny that evolution is random selection. Evolution is non-random selection. Non-random.

GEORGE PELL: So there is a purpose to it is there?

RICHARD DAWKINS: No.

GEORGE PELL: Could you explain what non-random means?

RICHARD DAWKINS: Yes, of course I could. It’s my life's work!

I love it, especially because so many religious apologists seem to forget that these scientists do have a whole lot of research behind what they are doing, and unlike a lifetime built up on theological ideas, they can explain them with due recourse to facts and observations. It just goes to show how much of religious disapproval of evolutionary theory is based on an unchanging image of the science as constructed by apologists, rather than an active understanding of the theory. That evolution is still considered by many who don’t understand it as a random process, is something which must infuriate Dawkins, and other evolutionary biologists, to no end.

Dawkins great strength is how he can explain something so well, in so few words. Take for example the explanation of evolution’s non-random nature which he gives to Pell:

“There is random genetic variation and non-random survival and non-random reproduction which is why, as the generations go by, animals get better at doing what they do. That is quintessentially non-random.”

Next, an atheist asks a question about what will happen when he [the atheist] dies and we get a long response from Pell (prodded by Tony of course) which goes into some of the intricacies of the Christian mythology, but again I like the concise and rational nature of Dawkins response:

“Well, the answer to the question of what’s going to happen when we die depends on whether we're buried, cremated or give our bodies to science.”

Bam, done.

As the discussion delved into more Christian mythology, and Pell defended such things as bodily resurrection and transubstantiation, he again hinted toward the mortal origins of Christianity upon acknowledging the adoption of yet more Greek culture and thinking into the Christian ethos:

“I understand it [edit: transubstantiation], according to a system of metaphysics. It was spelled out by the Greeks before Christ came, which we have adopted [......]”

Though I suppose it could be said that the referrals back to a previous culture don’t just show the human origins of religion, but rather that it may reflect a universal truth not quite grasped correctly by the Greeks. But honestly; which is the simpler explanation?

Dawkins calls out another tricky tactic of the religious apologist when he continually tries to get Pell to explain how some of the language he is using actually applies to real world usage, and our way of employing the English language. When Pell tries to explain how the wafer does become the body of Christ via transubstantiation, but remains as a wafer for all intents and purposes, Dawkins retorts:

“I mean I use - English is my native language. The wafer does not become the body of anybody in the English language.”

However as Pell had previously said:

“I believe it because I believe the man who told us that was also the son of God. He says, “This is my body. This is my blood,” and I’d much prefer to listen to him and take his word than yours.”

It is clear that a rational discussion about language and how it should be employed (with common definitions and syntax) is useless against someone who defines words by divine fiat, not in any proper linguistic fashion.

Seeing that this discussion was going nowhere, Tony interjected with a new, and refreshingly brief, question from the audience:

“Is it okay to tell a child that God doesn't exist? ”

This is one I have thought about a lot as my son is growing up in a culture that frequently talks of God, gods and heaven, albeit generally in a metaphorical or profane (“God damn it!”) sense. Dawkins does well, saying that he would prefer for her to figure it out based on the evidence [he has a great open letter to his daughter, hence the ‘her’, that can be found over here]. After all, he is an agnostic atheist, and would not be willing to tell his child that a god doesn’t exist with 100% certainty anyhow.

Then when Pell was starting his response to this question, he unintentionally got the biggest laugh of the night with this statement, which were it not coming from a member of the catholic church, would barely have registered a stifled giggle:

“I remember when I was in England we were preparing some young English boys”

I smell a meme on the way!

Thank you Sam Dekok for being so on the ball making this

Some people have said that it was a bit crass of Dawkins to laugh when the audience took amusement from Pell reminiscing about ‘preparing’ some English boys, but I think that given the Catholic Church’s history in this regard, it is hardly an unwarranted jest.

Then when the laughter dies down, and he finally gets it out, Pell’s self styled ‘simple’ answer to the question of whether kids should be told they are going to hell is this:

"Hitler. You think Hitler might be in hell? Started the Second World War, caused the death of 50 million or would you prefer a system where Hitler got away with it for free?"

Would you prefer it? As if preference has a bearing upon reality. I am sure the kid would prefer a universe where suffering such as the like committed by Hitler, was simply not possible.

This personal drive for justice to be handed out even after the grave is brought home when Jones presses him further (as he is sooooo good at doing):

TONY JONES: What about a system where he was obliterated and didn't exist anymore?
GEORGE PELL: Well, he would have got away with too much, as far as I am concerned.

But Pell doesn’t give up, he is determined to show that simply wanting the universe to be a preferable and just one is somehow an argument for it actually being such a universe.

“But I believe on behalf of the innocent victims in history that the scales of justice should work out. And if they don't, life is radically unjust, the law of the jungle prevails.”

‘On behalf of the innocent victims’, implicitly suggesting that those atheists who don’t believe there is justice in the universe from some divine after death source, are somehow not on the side of the victims.

True, a world where the Hitler’s and Mengele’s can simply die and escape justice may not be a just world at all. However saying this doesn’t really add weight to the argument to that your idea of what the world could be like is nicer than an alternative, and therefore that it must be true.

I believe that the world is essentially an indifferent place, which is why I don’t think that justice is something to be doled out from beyond the grave, but rather that justice, like ethics and happiness; is an entirely human affair.

Dawkins likewise is having none of this, and simply responds to the question of which reality is more preferential with this little nugget of rationality:

“I’m more interested, however, in what’s true than in what I would like to be true.”

Any talk of suffering or justice in regard to a religious worldview is bound to ask the question of why an omnipotent god would allow such things to happen. Pell offers up the same ‘free will’ argument so often employed, yet very rarely explained:

“That’s a very good question but if God is going to allow us to be good he’s got to give us freedom.”

Freedom perhaps, but ability; no. We can easily be given the freedom to do things, without making every possible action available to be done. For example, we have the ability to kill, and maim; but is this physical reality required in order for our will to be truly free? I don’t think so. We could have bodies incapable of feeling pain, or being killed, whilst retaining our free will, so this reality still needs to be accounted for.

As the night quickly came to an end, I think Pell was beginning to lose interest in the whole affair. He had shot himself in the foot a few times along the way, and then added this nice snafu to the mix when talking about secondary causes in regard to how a perfect god would design a just universe:

GEORGE PELL: It is interesting through these secondary causes probably no people in history have been punished the way the Germans were. It is a terrible mystery.
TONY JONES: There would be a very strong argument saying that the Jews of Europe suffered worse than the Germans.

George Pell, you have been Tony Jones’d.

As if that weren’t enough to highlight Pell’s mounting disinterest in his side of the exchange, his final words for the night consisted of this exchange:

GEORGE PELL: [...] my life would be much simpler and much easier if I didn't have to go to bat for a number of Christian principles.
TONY JONES: Have you ever regretted that you do?
GEORGE PELL: Sometimes I wonder.
TONY JONES: Seriously?
GEORGE PELL: No. No. No. 

Ah yes, if only it was the good old days, when Catholic Cardinals didn’t have to try and explain themselves to the people, and could just force through their will with divine right.

Anyhow, that is my commentary on the Dawkins v Pell episode of Q and A. I hope it was enjoyable.

MM


Oh, and one quick last minute mention of another meme created after George Pell replied to a question about the existence of gays within his god's master plan in this exchange:

TONY JONES: Can I just interpose a quick question on this. We are running out of time. I mean do you believe that homosexuality, since it’s not a question of choice, is part of God's natural order? GEORGE PELL: Creation is messy. I think it’s the oriental carpet makers always leave a little flaw in their carpet because only God is perfect. 

I love the internet

A mini-post on Rick Santorum and the Wrongness of the Religious Right

First a quick disclaimer. I understand this post is very U.S.-centric, and that it is mainly about an American who we (hopefully) will never have to deal with in the antipodes. But upon hearing some of the stuff I comment on below, I just couldn’t help myself. The U.S. religious right are just so much more amusing than our brand of Christian crazies over here. I am however open to any suggestions people might have as to who I should turn my attentions to here in Australia, but until then, enjoy:

Rick Santorum: 53 and still needs to label his cloths...

I was reading this great article over at Al-Jazeera about the American presidential hopeful Rick Santorum. It focuses particularly on his religious views, as he so often brings them into not only his public life but also his official one, stating such things as:

Comparing gay marriage, to beastiality;

“In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing.”

Arguing for the state to be able to limit consensual sex (whether it be gay or unmarried);

“The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we're seeing it in our society”

Claiming that Satan controls Academia, and has it bent for evil;

“The place where he was, in my mind, the most successful, and first successful, was in academia. He understood pride of smart people. He attacked them at their weakest, that they were in fact smarter than everybody else, and could come up with something new and different, pursue new truths, deny the existence of truth, play with it, because they're smart. And so academia, a long time ago, fell.”

And linking problems funding Social Security to the labour loss from abortions;

“The reason Social Security is in big trouble is we don't have enough workers to support the retirees. Well, a third of all the young people in America are not in America today because of abortion, because one in three pregnancies end in abortion.”

The man has a lot to say, and it’s pretty obvious where his motivations come from.

Around about two thousand years ago it seems.

Needless to say, he is making good headway in the Republican primaries despite originally polling as a third tier nominee, and this late surge appears to be largely due to his conservatism; in particular his conservative religious views. This piece by Paul Rosenberg takes to heart some comments made by the former United States senator regarding the theology of Obama, and how Rick questions the religion he follows (they are both Christians, just different flavours). The author decided to turn Santorum’s inquisitional spotlight back on him, and promptly tears him apart as not only a hypocrite, but also a religiously motivated opportunist.

Anyhow for those interested in how the Republican race to try for president is going, I recommend you read it, but for those less interested, I will get to the true crux of this post.

The start of the article questions how much not only Rick Santorum, but also the religious right in general, actually follow their supposed religious principles. It uses the following quote from the Bible to highlight the disparity present in a lot of this conservatively based religion driven politics:

"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. 
"But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly."- Matthew 6:5-6

That’s right; it appears that at least in this portion of the Bible, Christians are implored to be modest and discrete in their prayers. They are told to confine it to their personal life, and perhaps not try and force it into schools for instance.

No doubt there are other sections of the Bible that take a different tack, and advocate aggressive prosthelytising. But hey, that’s the up side of having a religious text that was cobbled together over thousands of years, by many authors; you are able to pick and choose so that you can take on whatever contradictory views you like, and still feel a sense of divine authorisation.
Anyhow, that's was just a quick post to get me back into the swing of things after a long weekend of birthdays and buck's nights.
Hope you enjoyed it, see you in the comments.
MM

Wednesday’s Words – Free Will

I have decided to add a little descriptive section to my Wednesdays Words title this past few weeks because my previous entries were turning into quite long and rambling discussions on a certain topic, rather than just the quotes that spurned them forth. This has again happened this week, with a seemingly innocent quote regarding free will launching me into a diatribe against the free will argument as it is applied by religious apologists.

What can I say; I am missing my regular Christian debates now that Facebook has disabled their old discussion boards. Nevertheless, I hope this is somehow engaging. Enjoy!

“We have to believe in free will. We’ve got no choice” – Isaac Bashevis Singer

The idea of free will has always been interesting to me.

Looking at the world from our inevitable first person bias, our own will seems all but indisputable. Yet by the same token there are things in me that I cannot control, things that appear to be beyond the purview of my will, but which nevertheless I would consider an integral part of myself.

For instance the love I have for my wife and son is not something I have brought about due to my will, but it is nevertheless something I consider a core part of my being. Much more so than other things which are a part of me, but not subject to the whims of my free will. Things such as my automatically beating heart, or my preference to cry, if I have been sufficiently hurt.

I, like Dawson, am only human after all

But then the limits of what we mean by our will are also not so easily defined. I like to think of my will as my ability to deliberate in my own mind, to come to decisions and then to act so that these things are brought about. However as mentioned above, any decisions I make are inevitably based on further components of what I consider as central to my being. I can’t will that I love my wife, but I can will to marry her, and to devote myself in this way.

It’s like Schopenhauer said, “a man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills”.

Another reason why we find free will as central to our views on life is because it inevitably links in with our concepts of responsibility. I can be held accountable for things only if they arise from my own free will, and are not forced upon me by others.

However free will is also a common scapegoat when it comes to one of my other interests; atheism/religion debates.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?”

The above quote is one of the more formidable and pressing arguments against the existence of certain kinds of gods in our universe. This is often referred to as the ‘Problem of Evil’, and is generally credited as being put forth by the ancient philosopher Epicurus, though it may date even further into antiquity than he.

The argument has retained a place in modern culture, well within the realm of the everyman, because of a few defining qualities it possesses. For starters it is simple; everyone can remember it, and it walks forward in a nice syllogism, with steps we can all follow. It is also very pertinent to our daily lives, with the evidence of pain and suffering evident across the globe to any caring person.

There are arguments against the existence of god (or for it) that delve too far into philosophical parlance, so that we have to try and understand concepts like ‘necessary agents’, or ‘parsimonious existence’,  before we can even begin to ponder the questions themselves. But the problem of evil argument is put forth in a way everyone can understand.

It is a burning question for people trying to reconcile the way the world is, with the way gods are presented to them. If a Christian puts forth the idea of their god as a loving god; one who is all-powerful and keenly interested in the affairs of man, then there appears to be a contradiction at play when you fail to see this divine agent acting out to alleviate the ills of the world. [Then there are I suppose the worst cases of Christianity, where they ascribe natural disasters to the very same gods capricious wrath.]

So we must ask ourselves why these actions aren’t taking place; is the god unwilling or unable.

It is at this point that we find the interjection of free will into the argument, as rather than addressing the question directly, religious proponents seek to skirt the problem altogether.

Their answer: There is evil in the world, because there is free will.

Here religious apologists seek to connect some of the worst factors of existence with arguably one of its finest; with our ability to think independently, and act of our own accord.

There is evil in the world because we have our own free will, and the only way to stifle this evil, to stop it at its core, is to withhold that very same will. To take what is free, and bind it in the staples of religious dogma.*

I prefer this kind of Dogma

Something important to consider however is that not all restrictions of will are violations of free will. This is especially worth noting, as if we are to grant these gods the credit for designing the universe, then these limits on our will must be intentional, and part of the design.

As an example of restriction of will, versus removal of free will, consider a prisoner. We have restricted his will (statistically it is a he); he cannot leave his cell, he cannot choose his meals, and he cannot run for political office. However this is a restriction upon his exercising of this will; not of the will itself. He can still will these things to happen; he just cannot make them happen. If we were on the other hand to subject him to a bit of advanced neurosurgery so that even though his cell door was open, he was unable to will himself to walk through it, we have taken away some of the freedom of his will. [Does that even make grammatical sense?]

But then if we want to apply this kind of thinking to a creator god, we have to ask a lot of incisive questions regarding not only the motivations of the god, but also the nature of creation.

Under the free will explanation for the existence of evil in the universe we have a god who allows evils to take place, because it feels that this freedom of will is more important than freedom from suffering. Generally in a theological sense this freedom must be present so that we humans have the ability to choose to worship a god freely, because apparently these gods prefer voluntary submission to some form of mandatory one. Its smacks of egoism to me, but anyhow.

We thus find ourselves with the ability to do evil actions, but also to choose to do good actions. Evidently some will choose to do evil over good, and we arrive at the world we are in today.

Now ignoring the fact that Christians believe everyone must choose evil actions at some point (which is either a violation of free will, a design flaw, or else a misunderstanding of statistics), I will instead focus on the curious fact that these evil choices are even presented to us at all.

I say presented to us, because the mere presence of free will does not mean there must intrinsically be evil options to choose from. After all, this creator god is apparently (or at least in most cases) all powerful, all knowing and perfect. So when creating the world we live in, there was a deliberate design in all the options that are available to us.
Looking at this critically it brings up some unpleasant realities, as this means that things like murder, rape and physical abuse had to have been systematically made possible from a physical and biological standpoint.

Why is it I can use my free will to batter a man to death, but I can’t employ the same free will to psychically slay him with my brain powers? It’s because such things are not possible in the physical realm we reside in.

It may seem a ridiculous point to argue, but it is something that needs to be addressed. Because just as I can posit a world where we have extra abilities, and thus room to commit more evils, I can likewise hypothesise a world where such physical killings are made impossible not through the removal of free will, but rather due to a physical restriction on certain actions within the physical world. Such a world would be preferential int he sense that it contains not only less evil, but less possible evil.

Then there is the fact that you could still have a world with free will, but protect the innocent from harm. Take murder for instance. Murder is evil, is a sin, and with rational reasons behind it. However one need not remove the ability to murder in order to eliminate the suffering caused by murder.

This god could stop you stabbing someone by turning the knife into a fish. It could prevent a shooting death by making the bullets disappear. True this hypothetical god intervening universe would then lead to a lot more questions (would guns have even been invented for instance) that I don’t have room to go into here. But the fact remains that the will to do evil does not require that actions are allowed to be taken through to fruition. This is why we have attempted murder charges after all.
At any rate, I think this ramble has gone on far too long, and perhaps I best save my atheistic arguments for a more dedicated post. There is evidently a lot to say on the subject of free will, and its place within the atheist/theist debate, and I would be interested in any comments here.
Cheers
MM

*Disclaimer: I have spent long enough debating online and in person with religious people to know that it is worth making a distinction here before people accuse me of generalisation. Being an atheist, I have to argue against not just one form of theism, but all forms of theism, and as a result there are no doubt theists out there who don’t share some of the values I am ascribing to them here. So I will make myself clear now., I am not saying that the views expressed in this post as belonging to theists must belong to all theists. I am arguing against a theistic argument, not against all theism. I simply omit pointing this out overtly throughout the post, as it becomes a bit tedious to always be saying, ‘a subset of theists’, or ‘theistic evolutionists’ or some other such group within theism. If you don’t agree with the form of theist I am presenting, don’t assume it is a straw man argument; instead recognise it as an argument against some other form of theist.

That was a damn long disclaimer...

Creepy Church Sign

Whenever I visit my parents in Magpie I make sure to check the sign this church has out the front of its grounds. You know the kind where they have their uplifting message, or their prosthelytising tracts, or the kind on the Simpsons that always has an amusing message.

Well when I saw this the other day, I knew I would have to stop next time and take a photo, its just so odd and creepy; something which would seem more at home in a message from a stalker, written with cut out letters from magazines.

Check it out:

Did i mention he is supposedly watching you; all the time......

Seriously? What is the message this is trying to get across? I mean I understand the reference being that Jesus got himself killed for the sins of all mankind. But does it really need to try and link itself to ones perception of their appearance?
I don't really have much more to say on the subject; what do you all think?
MM