Archive for atheism

on intelligent design…

Posted in Books, Kids, Travel with tags , , , , , , , on August 19, 2014 by xi'an

chicken In connection with Dawkins’ The God delusion, which review is soon to appear on the ‘Og, a poster at an exhibit on evolution in the Harvard Museum of Natural History, which illustrates one of Dawkins’ points on scientific agosticism. Namely, that refusing to take a stand on the logical and philosophical opposition between science and religion(s) is not a scientific position. The last sentence in the poster is thus worse than unnecessary…

modern cosmology as a refutation of theism

Posted in Books with tags , , , , , on June 23, 2014 by xi'an

Central Park, New York, Sep. 25, 2011

While I thought the series run by The Stone on the philosophy [or lack thereof] of religions was over, it seems there are more entries.  This week, I read with great pleasure the piece written by Tim Maudlin on the role played by recent results in (scientific) cosmology in refuting theist arguments.

“No one looking at the vast extent of the universe and the completely random location of homo sapiens within it (in both space and time) could seriously maintain that the whole thing was intentionally created for us.” T. Maudlin

What I particularly liked in his arguments is the role played by randomness, with an accumulation of evidence of the random nature and location of Earth and human beings, which and who appear more and more at the margins of the Universe rather than the main reason for its existence. And his clear rejection of the argument of fine-tuned cosmological constants as an argument in favour of the existence of a watchmaker. (Argument that was also deconstructed in Seber’s book.) And obviously his final paragraph that “Atheism is the default position in any scientific inquiry”. This may be the strongest entry in the whole series.

soft atheism

Posted in Books, Kids with tags , , , , , , on May 21, 2014 by xi'an

New YorkA few weeks ago, I reported reading a dismal New York Times blog entry on atheism. The Stone has continued publishing entries on the topic of religions and atheism, with mostly poor tribunes (maybe because the interviews were with philosophers from various religious stands rather than philosophers of religion). The third one on deconstructing religion almost sounds like a joke  made by a follower of Sokal and Bricmont!

“Religion at its best (…) focuses on human problems, attempting to relieve want and misery, to provide opportunities for worthwhile life, and to deepen and extend important values.”

The sixth in the series is however more interesting, with an interview of Philip Kitcher, professor at Columbia. It is entitled the case of soft atheism and defends a separation between religious doctrines that are incredible (as a non-native speaker [and as an unbeliever], I am surprised by this use of incredible and would have instead used unbelievable) and religious commitment that the author sees as a mild form of humanism. This “refined religion” puts value on people without referring to a specific ritual or doctrine. I find the arguments of Kitcher quite interesting, even though they seem to stray from philosophy towards sociology, i.e. about why religion is an important social vector that may bring cohesion and inclusion in this soft version. As exemplified in the above quote. This is somewhat representative of the whole series, that again I find lacking in philosophical depth. (I also think Kitcher’s `refined religion’ is not very representative of the current conglomerate of religious believers. Who stick to their own doctrine as the only expression of truth.)

is atheism irrational?

Posted in Books, Kids with tags , , , , , , , on March 2, 2014 by xi'an

“If a belief is as likely to be false as to be true, we’d have to say the probability that any particular belief is true is about 50 percent. Now suppose we had a total of 100 independent beliefs (of course, we have many more). Remember that the probability that all of a group of beliefs are true is the multiplication of all their individual probabilities. Even if we set a fairly low bar for reliability — say, that at least two-thirds (67 percent) of our beliefs are true — our overall reliability, given materialism and evolution, is exceedingly low: something like .0004. So if you accept both materialism and evolution, you have good reason to believe that your belief-producing faculties are not reliable.”

On the (New York Times) philosophy blog The Stone, I spotted this entry and first wondered if I had misread the title, as atheism sounds (to me) as a most rational position. I then read the piece and found it mostly missing, even though a few points rang true(r). First, theism is never properly defined. (Even though the author Alvin Plantinga seems to stick to monotheist religions.) This is a not-so-subtle trick as it makes atheism appear as the extreme position, since it is rejecting any form of theism! Then, the interviewee is mostly using a sequence of sophisms as arguments that atheists are irrational, see e.g. the even-star-ism and a-moonism and a-teapotism entries. Further, some of his entries very strongly resemble intelligent design arguments, e.g. the “fine-tuning” line that the universe is too perfectly suited to human life to be due to randomness. Even though Plantinga also resorts to evolution when needed, as in the above quote. (The interviewer is not doing a great job either, by referring to evil, or the need (or lack thereof) of God versus science to explain the world. Rather than resorting to rational arguments. And without mentioning the fundamental point in favour of atheism that the existence of a sentient being driving the whole universe while remaining hidden to us humans requires an infinitely stronger step than arguing this is impossibly incompatible with the laws of Physics and the accumulated corpus of experience since the dawn of humanity.) The whole strategy of Plantinga is actually to turn atheism into another kind of belief “that materialism and evolution are true” and then to rank it equal with the theisms. A very poor philosophical performance. As also (and better) pointed out in this other post. (And as my daughter remarked, fresh from writing a philosophy essay, Plantinga is missing the best argument of all, namely Pascal’s wager, an early instance of decision theory applied to religion.)