Did the Historical Jesus Exist?

If Jesus existed as a human being and did so many amazing things, surely somebody at the time would have written about him? Well, actually, no.

The first time Jesus is mentioned outside the Bible is sixty years after he supposedly died. By then, Paul had already spread the myth of a Jesus that he himself had never met, and the first gospels may have already been written.

After these sixty years of silence, there are five ‘early’ independent reports that Christians most often quote:

• A discredited fourth-century attempt to insert Christian propaganda into a first-century history book.
• A passing second-century reference to the death of Christ, which gets Pontius Pilate’s job title wrong.
• Two uncontroversial second-century records of the existence of Christians in Rome and Asia Minor.
• A claim, made in the ninth century, that somebody else wrote, in the third century, about somebody else writing about a solar eclipse in a lost first-century document.

There is no independent record, in all of recorded history, of any of the following: his alleged bloodline from Abraham and David, his alleged virgin birth, his parent’s alleged flight from Herod, his alleged baptism by John the Dipper, his alleged preaching to large multitudes, his alleged miracles (walking on water, reviving corpses etc), the nature of his alleged trial or death, or his alleged return from being dead to being alive again.

Chronologically, these claims are:

• Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian, in his Jewish Antiquities of 93 ad.
• Gaius Tacitus, a Roman historian, in his Annals of about 110 ad.
• Pliny the Younger, a Roman Governor, in his Letters of about 110 ad.
• Suetonius, a Roman historian, in his Lives of the Caesars of about 120 ad.
• Thallus, a first century historian, in an allegedly lost undated document.

1. Flavius Josephus

Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian, in his Jewish Antiquities of 93 ad, was the first independent historian to refer to the existence of Jesus. Josephus was a thirty-year-old Jewish rebel during the revolt of 66 ad who miraculously survived a suicide pact among his troops, then switched sides and became a Roman citizen. In 93 ad he published the Jewish Antiquities, a twenty-book history of the Jews. This allegedly contained this reference to Jesus:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

Aside from not being contemporaneous, Jesus-mythologists have noted that this reference is weighted down with alarm bells.

• Josephus was a Jew, writing a Jewish history. He would never have called Jesus ‘the Christ’.
• This remarkable claim, which would have been great propaganda for early church leaders, seems to have gone unnoticed for nearly a quarter of a millennium.
• As late as 230 ad, Origen, one of the fathers of the church, was unaware of the claim; indeed he denied that Josephus believed Jesus was the Christ.
• It was 324 ad before Bishop Eusebius became the first person to quote this passage. Incidentally, this is the same Bishop who took another passage from Josephus, in which an owl appeared over King Herod’s head, and rewrote the owl as an angel.
• Even the Catholic Encyclopedia admits that ‘the passage seems to suffer from repeated interpolations.’ Top marks to whoever decided to use the word ‘interpolation’ as a euphemism for forgery.

Some Jesus mythologists believe that Christians ‘interpolated’ (great word!) all of this passage, as it seems to interrupt the flow of the narrative before and after it.

Another theory is that Josephus may have mentioned Jesus by quoting, more rationally, some extracts from an earlier document, and Christians later ‘interpolated’ (swoon!) all of the propaganda about Jesus being divine. On balance, I believe that something like this probably happened. This would be consistent with a later, shorter reference in the same book to James as being ‘the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ’, although even here it is unusual to see a person named by reference to his brother rather than his father.

The Catholic Encyclopedia concludes simply of the controversies that

The difficulty has not been definitively settled.

That is hardly a ringing endorsement of what is supposed to be the first independent historical record of Jesus.

2. Gaius Tacitus

A second independent record of Jesus was written about 110 AD. Gaius Tacitus was a Roman Consul who turned his attention to writing in his forties. His first major work, the Histories, was written around 105 ad. It chronicled the Flavian dynasty that ruled the Roman Empire during the final third of the first century.

His second major work, the Annals, was published about five years later. It covered the quarter century leading up to the Flavian dynasty, from the death of Augustus Caesar to the suicide of Nero. Here’s what Tacitus had to say about Jesus in the context of the spread of Christianity, and the burning of Rome, in 64 AD:

Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.

Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car.

Jesus-mythologists have noted these points about this record:

• Though somewhat overshadowed by the unpleasant nature of Nero, this does suggest that a person known as Christus once existed. Tacitus was a disciplined historian, and is likely to have satisfied himself that what he wrote was accurate. Despite this, the claim has been challenged on various grounds.
• It is far from contemporaneous, being written almost eighty years after the supposed event.
• It is merely a passing reference while discussing something else, to explain how the Christians got their name.
• Tacitus did not base the reference on official records as, if they had existed, they would have called the victim Jesus and given Pilate his proper title of prelate.

3. Pliny the Younger

A third independent record of Jesus was written in about 110 AD. Pliny the Younger was a Roman politician who published ten books of his Letters. One was written around 110 ad, when Pliny, in his late forties, was Governor of a Roman Province in what today is Turkey. Pliny was seeking the advice of the Roman Emperor Trajan on how to deal with people brought before him accused of the ‘contagious superstition’ of Christianity. He wrote that:

They affirmed the whole of their guilt, or their error, was, that they met on a stated day before it was light, and addressed a form of prayer to Christ, as to a divinity, binding themselves by a solemn oath, not for the purposes of any wicked design, but never to commit any fraud, theft, or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble, to eat in common a harmless meal.

From this custom, however, they desisted after the publication of my edict, by which, according to your commands, I forbade the meeting of any assemblies. After receiving this account, I judged it so much the more necessary to endeavour to extort the real truth, by putting two female slaves to the torture, who were said to officiate in their religious rites: but all I could discover was evidence of an absurd and extravagant superstition. I deemed it expedient, therefore, to adjourn all further proceedings, in order to consult you.

Jesus-mythologists have noted two points about this record:

• The letter refers to the spread of Christianity eighty years after the supposed death of Jesus, not to the historical accuracy of Jesus as a person. As an aside, it is interesting that women officiated at the Christian rites.
• Also, this is not a major issue for Pliny: it is among a series of letters to the Emperor raising minor administrative queries, like prize moneys for athletes and freedoms of the city.

Trajan’s reply certainly showed no major concern about the spread of Christianity:

You have adopted the right course in investigating the charges against the Christians who were brought before you. It is not possible to lay down any general rule for all such cases. Do not go out of your way to look for them. If indeed they should be brought before you, and the crime is proved, they must be punished; with the restriction, however, that where the party denies he is a Christian, and shall make it evident that he is not, by invoking our gods, let him (notwithstanding any former suspicion) be pardoned upon his repentance. Anonymous informations ought not to he received in any sort of prosecution. It is introducing a very dangerous precedent, and is quite foreign to the spirit of our age.

4. Gaius Suetonius

A fourth independent record of the possible existence of Jesus was written in about 120 AD by Gaius Suetonius, who was a Roman historian who worked for Pliny and various Emperors. His many works ranged from the academic Grammatical Problems and Lives of the Grammarians to the more populist Greek Terms of Abuse and Lives of Famous Whores.

In about 120 ad, in his major work, Lives of the Caesars, he says of the Emperor Claudius that:

As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.

Now, Chrestus may be a misspelling of Christus, but it is also the correct Latin version of a different Greek name. So this passage means one of two things: either

• There were Christians in Rome at the time of Claudius, causing trouble in the name of their Christ, whose name was misspelled by an expert in linguistics; or
• There was a Jew in Rome called Chrestus, directly causing trouble.

Either way, the passage proves nothing about the historical accuracy of Jesus as a person.

5. Thallus

This is the weakest claim by far. George Syncellus, a ninth-century Christian, was writing about the gospel story that the earth went dark when Jesus died. He quoted Julian Africanus, a third-century Christian, as having written:

Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse of the Sun in the third book of his Histories.

Thallus was a pagan historian who lived in either the first or second century ad. But there are three problems with this claim:

• The alleged original document does not exist.
• Nobody else who quoted Thallus before the ninth century had ever mentioned this.
• Even if Thallus had said this, his alleged quote does not even mention Jesus.

Surely an all-powerful God could have inspired his defenders to come up with a better argument than this?

Conclusions

Taking all of the five references together, the most that can be said about the life of Jesus is this.

• During the reign of Tiberius, Pontius Pilate may have executed a criminal called Jesus. I believe that this probably happened; Jesus was a common name and the Romans executed many criminals.
• If he existed, this Jesus was not a major figure, as nobody other than his followers wrote about him for over half a century.
• Whether or not he existed, his name became the symbol of a religious movement that spread to at least Rome and Asia Minor.
• There is no independent record, in all of recorded history, of any of the following: his alleged bloodline from Abraham and David, his alleged virgin birth, his parent’s alleged flight from Herod, his alleged baptism by John the Dipper, his alleged preaching to large multitudes, his alleged miracles (walking on water, reviving corpses etc), the nature of his trial or his death, or his alleged return from being dead to being alive again.

Photo: Christus Statue by Midiman (cc)

Please leave a comment below. You can also subscribe to my RSS feed.

5 Funny Songs by Tim Minchin

If You Open Your Mind Too Much by Tim Minchin.

I’ve just added Tim Minchin to my directory of famous atheists. Minchin is an Australian comedian, composer, songwriter, pianist and actor whose songs include the politically incisive Peace Anthem for Palestine, the inanimate love song Inflatable You, the environmental mega-anthem Take Your Canvas Bags and the self-deprecatory career-crisis confession that is Rock N Roll Nerd.

Minchin is also responsible for probably the most comprehensive atheist-related song lyric in the history of atheist-related song lyrics:

‘And if anyone can show me one example in the history of the world of a single spiritual person who has been able to show either empirically or logically the existence of a higher power with any consciousness or interest in the human race or ability to punish or reward humans for their moral choices or that there is any reason other than fear to believe in any version of an afterlife, I will give you my piano, one of my legs and my wife.’

Tim Minchin on YouTube

Here are four more Tim Minchin classics from YouTube:

Peace Anthem for Palestine by Tim Minchin

Inflatable You by Tim Minchin

Take Your Canvas Bags by Tim Minchin

Rock N Roll Nerd by Tim Minchin

Please leave a comment below. You can also subscribe to my RSS feed.

Reality is Basically as it Seems

This is the third article in a series about why I assume that reality is basically as it seems to be. In the first article, I explained why I believe nothing can be objectively known. In the second article, I described five possible theories of reality.

This third article examines the patterns in the five theories of reality, and concludes that:

1. Each new scenario seems closer to the evidence of my experience.
2. Each assumes the existence of extra things that cannot be known to exist.
3. Each seems increasingly functional as a working assumption of reality.
4. These apparent patterns contain a key ‘on/off’ reason-switch.
5. This leads me to assume that reality is basically as it seems to be.

And here is the detail of how I arrive at this assumption:

1. Each new scenario seems closer to the evidence of my experience.

This is the first of three patterns that these possible scenarios seem to follow.

(a) In the first scenario, all that seems to exist, even what seem to be thoughts, may an illusion. This scenario seems so far away from the apparent evidence of ‘my experience’ as to be incompatible with it.

(b) Gradually extra entities are assumed to exist (‘thoughts’, ‘thinking beings’, physical objects). Each of these seems to match with parts of the apparent evidence of ‘my experience’.

(c) In the final scenario, all permutations of thoughts are combined with real physical objects. This makes the nature of reality identical to the apparent evidence of ‘my experience’.

2. Each new scenario assumes the existence of extra things that cannot be known to exist.

This is the second of three patterns that these possible scenarios seem to follow.

(a) In the first scenario, all that seems to exist, even what seem to be thoughts, may an illusion. This is the easiest to defend using reason alone, because it makes no definitive challengeable assertion.

(b) Gradually extra entities are assumed to exist (‘thoughts’, ‘thinking beings’, physical objects) that cannot be known to exist. Each of these assumptions makes each scenario a step harder to defend using reason alone.

(c) The final scenario has the greatest number of ‘entities that are assumed to exist but cannot be known to exist.’ This makes it the hardest scenario to defend using reason alone.

3. Each new scenario seems increasingly functional as a working assumption of reality.

This is the third of three patterns that these possible scenarios seem to follow.

This third pattern depends on something being assumed to exist. If everything is an illusion, then the illusory ‘me’ is at no disadvantage by virtue of being an illusion, because what seems to be ‘everything else’ is also an illusion.

(a) Stage one: ‘independent thoughts’ or another ‘thinking being’ are assumed to exist, but ‘I’ am not. This renders meaningless any attempts by the illusory ‘me’ to analyse or choose or do anything.

(b) Stage two: I am assumed to exist, as the sole ‘thinking being’. I can now seek to analyse and choose and do things, but cannot communicate as nobody else exists.

(c) Stage three: I and other ‘thinking beings’ are assumed to exist. I can now function in much the way that I seem to, based on the apparent evidence of ‘my experience’. This allows me to have a meaningful working assumption of reality.

At any of these three stages, the real or illusory ‘me’ can function in much the same way irrespective of whether the physical objects are real or illusory. This is because, at each stage, my real interaction with real physical objects seems functionally identical to ‘my’ illusory interactions with illusory physical objects.

4. These apparent patterns contain a key ‘on/off’ reason-switch.

In terms of making a working assumption about the nature of reality, the biggest conflict is not whether physical objects or gods are assumed to exist. It is whether anything is assumed to exist that cannot be known to exist, using reason alone.

In other words, the switch is turned to ‘on’ once it is assumed that anything at all exists. This may not even be ‘thoughts’; it may be something that seems to be ‘thoughts’ but is actually something else. But as long as it is assumed that that something exists, and it cannot be known to exist, the switch has been turned to ‘on’.

If it is assumed that it is self-evident that something must exist, then the switch is turned to on once something identifiable is assumed to exist that cannot be known to exist. Depending on the rational faculties of the ‘assumer’, this could be when ‘thoughts’, a ‘thinking being’ or ‘me’ is assumed to exist.

5. This leads me to assume that reality is fundamentally as it seems to be.

Once ‘I’ turn on this switch, ‘I’ have assumed in principle that “things-that-cannot-be-known-to-exist” may exist. What then might these things be?

Experience and Reason: Once I assume that anything exists, it is now rational to assume that reality consists of those specific things which seem both (a) most consistent with the apparent evidence of my experience, and (b) most likely to be the case, based on applying reason to the apparent evidence of my senses.

This leads me towards the final scenario of my five theories of reality: it includes me as a thinking entity, you and other thinking entities, thoughts that are generated by me and you and other thinking entities, and real physical objects, whether animate or inanimate. It is not rational to assume that some, but not all, of these exist.

Also, it is not rational to assume that specific things exist if they are either (a) less consistent than other possibilities with the apparent evidence of my experience, or (b) less likely to be the case than other possibilities, based on applying reason to the apparent evidence of my senses. This includes unicorns, leprechauns and gods.

Functionality: This argument is strengthened if it results in a working assumption that makes it easier for ‘me’ to function in what seems to be reality. This also leads towards the final scenario of my five theories of reality, where ‘I’ am assumed to exist and interact with other thinking beings and physical objects.

It does not matter if ‘I’ am wrong in this assumption. If so, ‘I’ will just seem to cause the same things to happen as would happen anyway.

So, for practical reasons as well as theoretical ones, my working assumption is that reality is basically as it seems to be, based on applying reason to the apparent evidence of my senses, while remaining open to changing my specific beliefs if I become aware of new evidence.

Reality is Basically as it Seems to Be

Note that I am assuming that reality is basically as it seems to be, not that every detail of reality is actually as it seems to be. I am saying that:

(a) It is reasonable to assume that we exist as thinking, sentient beings in a world of real actual objects.

(b) It is reasonable to assume that the specifics of reality are those theories that are closest to the evidence of our experience, and that seem most likely after applying reason to that evidence.

(c) It is reasonable to always be prepared to change our assumptions if we get new evidence, but not until then.

Photo: Faces of the City by CW Buecheler (cc)

Please leave a comment below. You can also subscribe to my RSS feed.

Five Possible Theories of Reality

This is the second article in a series about why I assume that reality is basically as it seems to be. In the first article, I explained why I believe nothing can be objectively known. This second article deals with a sequence of five possible theories of what reality might consist of:

1. All that seems to exist, even what seem to be thoughts, may be an illusion.
2. Only independent thoughts exist. No separate being thinks them; the thoughts just exist by themselves.
3. Only one thinking being and its thoughts exist. The thoughts only exist when the being is thinking them.
4. Several thinking beings and their thoughts exist. The beings can interact with each other telepathically.
5. Real physical objects also exist, in conjunction with any of the above scenarios.

Here is an overview of each of these possibilities, and how each one fits in with my experience, my use of reason and the practicalities of living my life.

Theory 1: All that seems to exist, even what seem to be thoughts, may be an illusion.

Overview: This is the most cautious assumption of reality. Thoughts seem the most certain entities to exist, but maybe they only seem to be thoughts. Maybe they do not even exist. Maybe nothing actually exists except the illusion of existence itself.

Experience: This scenario seems the furthest away from the apparent evidence of ‘my experience’, to the extent of seeming incompatible with ‘my experience’.
Reason: This seems to involve a paradox. However, ‘I’ cannot rationally rule it out as I have no way of disproving it or of proving any alternative. Maybe this scenario is correct, but what seems to be ‘my thinking’ cannot comprehend how. This is the easiest scenario to defend using reason alone, because it makes no definitive challengeable assertion.
Functionality: As a working assumption of reality, this enables the illusory ‘me’ to function in what seems to be the same way as the real ‘me’ would if everything did exist. The illusory ‘me’ is at no disadvantage by virtue of being an illusion, because what seems to be ‘everything else’ is also an illusion.

Theory 2: Only independent thoughts exist. No separate being thinks them; the thoughts just exist by themselves.

Overview: If this is correct, then the illusion of ‘me’ is simply part of ‘the thoughts.’ This illusory ‘me’ cannot understand how this technically works, but this may be because ‘understanding how this works’ is not part of the ‘the thoughts.’

Experience: Assuming the actual existence of something (in this case, the ‘independent thoughts’) this scenario seems the furthest away from what the evidence of my experience. What ‘I’ seem to experience is an illusion, and so is ‘me’. What ‘you’ may seem to experience is an illusion, and so is ‘you’. What then is the relationship of the illusory ‘me’ and ‘you’ to the ‘independent thoughts’? An analogy is that the ‘independent thoughts’ are a computer programme, and ‘me’ and ‘you’ are some lines of code in that programme.
Reason: Of the scenarios that make a challengeable assertion (by assuming the actual existence of something), this seems the easiest to defend using reason alone. This is because it involves the fewest entities that are “assumed to exist without knowing that they exist,” i.e. the ‘independent thoughts’. This means there are fewest points of attack where the ‘independent thoughts’ (or indeed the illusory ‘me’ or ‘you’) are obliged to prove anything.
Functionality: As a working assumption of reality, this scenario renders meaningless any attempts to analyse or choose or do anything. The ‘independent thoughts’ are, in effect, in control. Whatever the illusory ‘me’ or ‘you’ seems to decide, the ‘independent thoughts’ just continue to do whatever they would have been doing anyway.

Theory 3: Only one thinking being and its thoughts exist. The thoughts only exist when the being is thinking them.

Overview: If this is correct, there are three sub-possibilities.

(a) Only I, Michael Nugent, exist. My thinking has generated the illusions of me having written this paragraph, and of ‘you’ existing and reading this. An analogy is that Michael Nugent is a computer programmer, and ‘you’ are some lines of code in a computer programme that he has written.

(b) Only you, the person who seems to be reading this paragraph, exist. Your thinking has generated the illusions of ‘Michael Nugent’ existing and writing this paragraph, and of you reading this. An analogy for this relationship is that you are a computer programmer, and ‘Michael Nugent’ is some lines of code in a computer programme that you have written.

(c) Only another thinking being exist. Its thinking has generated the illusions of ‘Michael Nugent’ existing and writing this paragraph, and of ‘you’ existing and reading this. An analogy is that the ‘thinking being’ is a computer programmer, and ‘Michael Nugent’ and ‘you’ are some lines of code in a computer programme that it has written.

The sole ‘thinking being’ (whichever one of ‘us’ it may be) has also generated the illusion of all of the world’s literature, history, art, sport, civilisations, wars, knowledge, pleasure, pain and ongoing events. This being is what some people (if they existed) might call a god. That said, if you are the sole ‘thinking being’, you might consider generating a higher standard of illusory life for yourself.

Experience: Because some ‘thinking being’ is assumed to exist, this scenario seems another step closer to the apparent evidence of ‘my experience’.
Reason: It also seems another step harder to defend using reason alone. Another entity (you or me or another ‘thinking being’) is assumed to exist that cannot be known to exist, i.e. its existence cannot be proved using reason alone.
Functionality: As a working assumption of reality, this may considerably boost the self-esteem of whichever ‘thinking being’ is assumed to exist. It also renders meaningless any attempts to debate or communicate anything, because nobody exists to communicate with. The thinker’s apparent disagreements with ‘other people’ are really internal arguments between the thinker’s own thoughts.

Theory 4: Several thinking beings and their thoughts exist. The beings can interact with each other telepathically.

Overview: You and I and others exist as ‘thinking beings’. We generate the illusion of sensory experiences, using our thinking, and we interact telepathically in a universe with no physical entities. However, there are limits to what our thinking can do. For example, each of us still seems to cease to exist (or ‘die’) at some stage, and we only seem able to communicate some thoughts and not others. We do not know why we all generate (more or less) the same illusions of sensory experiences, but this may be simply the way things happened to pan out.

Experience: Because the ‘thinking beings’ can communicate with each other, this scenario seems another step closer to the apparent evidence of ‘my experience’.
Reason: It also seems another step harder to defend using reason alone. Many entities (the interacting ‘thinking beings’) are assumed to exist that cannot be known to exist, i.e. their existence cannot be proved using reason alone.
Functionality: As a working assumption of reality, this enables me to function and interact with others, in what seems to be the same way as I would if our bodies and other objects actually existed. For example, we only seem able to transmit some thoughts and not others, and these ‘transmittable thoughts’ seem to correspond to those that we would communicate through our senses, if our senses existed.

Theory 5: Real physical objects also exist, in conjunction with any of the above scenarios.

Overview: Adding real physical entities to any of the above scenarios, such as atoms and rocks and trees and human bodies and bicycles and microwave ovens and space rockets and planets and galaxies.

Experience: Adding real physical entities to any scenario brings it another step closer to the apparent evidence of ‘my experience’. The effect is greatest with scenario four, which combines thinking beings, their thoughts, and interaction between the thinking beings. Here, adding real physical entities makes the nature of reality identical to the apparent evidence of ‘my experience’.
Reason: Adding real physical entities also makes each scenario another step harder to defend using reason alone, by assuming extra entities that cannot be known to exist.
Functionality: As a working assumption of reality, the real or illusory ‘me’ can function (in each scenario) in much the same way irrespective of whether the physical objects are real or illusory. This is because, in each scenario, my real interaction with real physical objects seems functionally identical to ‘my’ illusory interactions with illusory physical objects.

Assumption Based on These Theories

In the next article in this series, I will explain - based on these theories - why I assume that reality is basically as it seems to be.

Photo: How? by Not So Good Photography (cc)

Please leave a comment below. You can also subscribe to my RSS feed.

Nothing Can Be Objectively Known

This is the first article in a series about why I assume two things about reality: (1) that nothing can be objectively known, and (2) that reality is basically as it seems to be. This article is about the first of those assumptions - that nothing can be objectively known.

This is a summary of why nothing can be known:
1. I seem to interpret the universe, and make assumptions, using my thinking.
2. But I can never know if any of my interpretations or assumptions are correct.
3. It is possible that this assumption may itself be incorrect.
4. However, that possibility does not prove that anything can be known.

And here is the detail of each of these points:

1. I seem to interpret the universe, and make assumptions, using my thinking.

The universe is all that exists, whether thoughts or things. Some of these:

■ I am aware of experiencing (conscious thoughts, my house, eating ice cream)
■ I experience but am not aware of (subconscious thoughts, my 42nd eyelash)
■ I am aware of but do not experience (composing an opera, visiting the moon)
■ I neither experience nor am aware of (thoughts I have not had, specific aliens)

These entities seem to change, combine and interact in complex ways. I must therefore interpret my awareness of them, then make assumptions based on my interpretations. I call the mechanism with which I do this, ‘my thinking’.

2. But I can never know if any of my interpretations or assumptions are correct.

Why? Because I can only interpret their correctness by using the very mechanism whose ‘efficiency-in-being-correct’ that I am testing (i.e. ‘my thinking’).

■ If I assume that my thinking always produces correct interpretations, then this assumption may itself be an incorrect interpretation, caused by flaws in my thinking about which I am unaware.
■ If I doubt my thinking’s reliability in always producing correct interpretations, then I must also doubt its reliability in testing the correctness of those interpretations.

3. It is possible that this assumption may itself be incorrect.

■ It may be that something can be known, using mechanisms other than ‘my thinking’, and that ‘I’ am simply not yet aware of how this can be done.
■ If I am shown a proof that ‘something can be known’, then I will change this assumption.

4. However, that possibility does not prove that anything can be known.

■ To prove that ‘something can be known’, it is not sufficient to undermine the certainty of this or any theory of why ‘nothing can be known’.
■ Indeed, undermining the certainty of this assumption can reinforce it, unless the undermining is accompanied by a positive alternative proof.

■ To prove that ‘something can be known’, the onus is on the ‘knowledge-claimer’ to show how this can be done, using a proof that does not rely on the very thinking that is itself being tested.
■ Until this happens, this seems the safest and purest working assumption to make about the nature of the universe: that, based on what seems to be my experience so far of the universe, nothing can be known.

Five Possible Theories of Reality

In the next article in this series, I will examine five possible theories of what reality might consist of.

Photo: The Thinker by Brian - Progressive Spin (cc)

Please leave a comment below. You can also subscribe to my RSS feed.

Gods and Space Lizards - A Reply

This is a reply from Joshua Moran to this earlier article on gods, agnostics and space lizards. I’ll reply to the points in it later, but in the first instance it is worth putting up as a separate article. The quotes are from my original article, and the rest is Joshua’s reply.

‘Nobody can be certain whether or not George Bush is an alien space lizard’

Yes, but in raising this point, you - with respect - exclude the possibility of common sense. Common sense is an acceptable approach to use in formal philosophical enquiry (Aristotle and John Locke, in particular, focused on this subject).

Common sense doesn’t say: discount something out of hand - but it does say you can only give so much time or so much attention to something, and it does involve critical-thinking. From an everyday, practical point-of-view, if we didn’t apply common sense then we would go mad. Simple as that.

Arguments for space lizards versus arguments for a God

The common sense for discounting that Bush is a lizard (or whatever) is that no sort of argument can be made that he is one. But some sort of argument can be made for the existence of a God. For example:

• Many people have experienced transcendental / spiritual experiences - which suggest - but do NOT prove - that the divine might exist.
• There is no proof that Jesus is God, but there is good evidence that Jesus really existed as an historical figure: as a man in what is now the Holy Lands.

So there are arguments that make the existence of a divine Christ a lot more likely than the possibility that Pres. Bush is a lizard.

Don’t discount theories because of absence of proof

‘There is no middle ground on the question of whether or not you believe that George Bush is a space lizard, or whether you believe that gods exist. Either you believe these ideas, or you don’t believe them’

But do you not accept that there are some subjects where no definite answers can be provided. That doesn’t mean you deny the argument out-right because the argument is insubstantial (in the sense that no 100% proof can be provided). For example

• Do you reject all philosophical theories because these theories cannot be proved?
• Do you reject all scientific theories until those theories can be proved?

In many cases scientists have a hunch about something but they just can’t work out the maths at that particular point to give validity to that ‘hunch’. And then there are many theories where ‘proof’ cannot be provided - for example black holes - but that doesn’t mean we discount the theories outright just because ‘proof’ cannot be provided. Read more

Please leave a comment below. You can also subscribe to my RSS feed.

The Toy Vatican State at the UN

The Vatican is by far the smallest State in the world, being just over a hundred acres in size. It plays at being a real State by issuing its own stamps, but it has no proper citizens (just transient employees of the Catholic Church), few public services (Italy provides it with police and water) and no real economy (though it does have a novelty ATM machine that issues instructions in Latin).

But that does not matter, because the toy Vatican State does not generally interact with other real States. Instead, an entity called the Holy See, which is the central government of the worldwide Catholic Church, masquerades as a State and deals with actual States from its base in the Vatican.

This distinction is very important. It is the openly religious Holy See, and not the theoretically civic Vatican State, that swaps diplomats with actual States, and that has Permanent Observer status at the United Nations and other bodies. But the Holy See does not have any citizens, or any defined territory, and all that it governs is the religious affairs of some citizens of actual civic States.

Preaching to Diplomats about God

In 2008, Pope Benedict XVI gave a ‘state of the world’ address to all foreign diplomats to the Holy See. He told them that ‘law can be an effective force for peace only if its foundations remain solidly anchored in natural law, given by the Creator,’ and that ‘God can never be excluded from the horizon of man or of history.’

In a particularly patronizing passage, he added that ‘my thoughts today go especially to the nations that have yet to establish diplomatic relations with the Holy See: they too have a place in the Pope’s heart.’ But he could be forgiven for sounding smug: compared to the 176 States that have diplomatic relations with the Holy See, there are only seventeen that have not (nine of which are Muslim, and four communist).

Vatican Issues its own Stamps

How did this happen? How did the worldwide leadership of one religion come to be accepted as not only a civic State, but an influential one, while it is preaching to diplomats about God?

Well, in 1929, when Mussolini’s Italy recognised it as a State, the Vatican started issuing its own stamps. Because of this, in 1951, it got to attend UN meetings through its membership of the Universal Postal Union.

In 1957, the Vatican delegates persuaded the UN to refer to them as ‘the Holy See’. There was no vote on this, just an exchange of letters with the Secretary General. With this political sleight-of-hand, the Catholic Church could now officially act as a State.

Vatican Gets Status at United Nations

In 1964, the UN gave the Holy See permanent observer status, allowing the Catholic Church to attend and vote at UN conferences.

Pope Paul VI quickly set the tone when he colourfully told the next General Assembly that the UN must ‘not favour an artificial control of birth, which would be irrational, in order to diminish the number of guests at the banquet of life.’

Since then, because the UN takes most decisions by consensus, the Holy See has been able to frustrate negotiations on population, contraception, reproductive health care and women’s rights.

Vatican Status Upgraded at United Nations

In 1999, a campaign called ‘See Change’ tried to get the UN to treat the Catholic Church in the same way as it treats other religions – by allowing it to make submissions as an ordinary nongovernmental organisation. A reasonable suggestion, you would think.

Instead, in 2004, the UN upgraded the Holy See to having all of the rights of a full member State except voting at the General Assembly, which they didn’t want to do.

And so today, because the toy Vatican State can issue stamps, the Catholic Church is the only religion in the world that can attend and vote at UN conferences and co-sponsor drafts of UN resolutions and decisions.

I am of course exaggerating for effect here. The Vatican did not get to attend UN meetings solely because they could issue their own stamps. It was also because they ran their own radio station.

Photo: Vatican Postbox by Dear Barbie (cc)

Please leave a comment below. You can also subscribe to my RSS feed.

5 Literally Happy Songs

For an overdose of literally happy songs - that is, songs with happy in the title - here’s Happy Song by the Aliens, Happy Talk by Captain Sensible, Happy Together by the Turtles, Happy Days Toytown by the Small Faces and Don’t Worry, Be Happy by Bobby McFerrin.

Happy Song - The Aliens, 2006

Happy Talk - Captain Sensible, 1982

Happy Together - The Turtles, 1967

Happy Days Toytown - Small Faces, 1968

Don’t Worry, Be Happy - Bobby McFerrin, 1988

Please leave a comment below. You can also subscribe to my RSS feed.

Gods, Agnostics and Space Lizards

In a comment on an earlier article, Declan Chellar raises two important questions that go to the heart of atheism. They are: what exactly is atheism, and why should an agnostic take what seems to be a leap of faith by concluding that he is an atheist?

As Declan puts it:

‘For me, being a theist means saying “There IS a God and I don’t have to prove it”, whereas being an atheist means saying “There is NO God and I don’t have to prove it.”

By that measure, I consider myself neither, but respect the fact that other people feel the need or desire to be one or the other.’

For many years, I too considered myself an agnostic, and largely on the basis of the definitions that Declan uses. Here are three reasons why I changed my mind.

Certainty versus Belief

I first concluded that I am an atheist when I realized that atheism is not about certainty. At a philosophical level, nobody can be certain about anything. Atheism is about belief, or more specifically, absence of belief, in one particular idea – that gods exist.

Nobody can be certain whether or not George Bush is an alien space lizard, and nobody can be certain whether or not gods exist. Despite this, once I have been exposed to either of these ideas, I either believe them or I do not. I either believe that George Bush is a space lizard, or else I do not believe that George Bush is a space lizard, and I either believe that gods exist, or else I do not believe that gods exist.

There is no middle ground on the question of whether or not you believe that George Bush is a space lizard, or whether you believe that gods exist. Either you believe these ideas, or you don’t believe them. And atheism is about whether or not you believe that gods exist. ‘I don’t know’ is not a middle ground between believing and not believing; it is one possible rational reason for not believing.

Reasons for Believing

There is, however, a large middle ground on the question of why you believe things, how strongly you believe things, and how likely your belief is to be true. And this is the second reason why I concluded that I am atheist.

For example, I believe that I exist, that I have a physical body, that I had cereal for breakfast this morning, and that Carlos Alberto scored the fourth goal when Brazil beat Italy in the 1970 World Cup final in Mexico. I do not believe that David Icke injected a slow-releasing poison into my breakfast cereal, that I am the long-lost son of King Harald of Norway, that George Bush is an alien space lizard, or that gods exist.

Why do I believe or not believe each of these ideas? Well, I assume that reality is broadly as it seems to be, based on applying reason to the evidence of my senses, unless I get new evidence to the contrary, in which case I happily change my beliefs. And, the more important and the more improbable the idea that I am asked to believe, the more evidence I require before I believe it.

I cannot know for certain whether any of the above ideas are true or untrue. But, on a scale of likelihood, the idea that gods exist is the least likely of them, because it is most inconsistent with the laws of nature as I understand them. So, if I was to consider myself agnostic about whether or not gods exist, I would have to consider myself to be agnostic about almost everything that I believe or do not believe.

Why Atheism is Important

The third reason why I concluded that I am an atheist is a practical one. It is because I believe that taking a position on this issue is important. The idea of gods is bad for society, because it spreads irrational dogma that causes good people to do bad things. This affects three practical areas of our lives: the quest for knowledge, treating people fairly, and civic society.

Rational thinking makes the following more likely: Enquiry: an ongoing unbiased quest for knowledge and truth. Empathy: adult ethics, based on relating to other living beings. Equality: a secular society that protects everybody’s rights.

And irrational dogma makes the following more likely: Creeds: accepting, as truth, imaginary answers to big questions. Commands: childish ethics, based on orders, desire and fear. Control: unjust laws that are influenced by religious dogma.

I describe these reasons in more detail in my original post on this topic. Because of them, I believe that it is important for atheists to openly promote atheism, and for agnostics to seriously consider atheism.

Photo: Lizard in the Serengeti by David Dennis (cc)

Please leave a comment below. You can also subscribe to my RSS feed.

Vancouver Film School Videos

Here are three passionate, creative and inspirational short movies that have won scholarships to the Vancouver Film School in Canada for three young filmmakers from Mexico, Germany and the United States.

The challenge was to make a three-minute video on the theme ‘What matters most to me’. A judging panel picked ten finalists, then YouTube users voted for the winners. The results were announced last week, and here are the three winning videos.

Jorge Rolando Caneda Estrada from Mexico

Stefan Ramirez Perez from Germany

Christopher Harrell from the United States

More Videos

You can see hundreds more videos on the Vancouver Film SchoolYouTube Channel.

If you want more information, here’s the School’s website.

Please leave a comment below. You can also subscribe to my RSS feed.

Filipino Happiness and Hunger

Four out of every five Filipinos are happy, and this level of happiness has remained relatively high over the past fifteen years. And poor Filipinos are only marginally less happy than average.

However, seven million Filipino families consider themselves to be poor in terms of food. And hunger causes more unhappiness than general poverty does.

The research was conducted by Social Weather Stations, a non-profit social research institution based in Quezon City in Metro Manila.

Its three aims are: (1) Education, so eyes may see social conditions; (2) Conscientization, so hearts may feel social problems; and (3) Analysis, so minds may understand their solutions.

Unhappiness and Hunger in the Philippines

In March 2008, 77% of poor Filipinos were happy, not too far below the 81% average for all Filipinos. However, compared to an average family, a hungry family was one and a half times as likely to be unhappy, and a very hungry family was twice as likely to be unhappy.

That fits in with studies from other countries that show that it is harder to be happy when you are below a certain basic level of income. However, when you go above that level of income, every extra amount of money that you earn has less and less impact on your happiness.

As well as the seven million Filipino families who are poor in terms of food, there are five million families on the borderline, and another five and a half million families who are not poor in terms of food.

Also, despite considerable inflation, Filipino families are not increasing the food budget that they need in order not to consider themselves poor in terms of food. This means that, in real terms, poor Filipino families are lowering their living standards.

Overall Happiness in the Philippines

The four out of five adult Filipinos who are happy break down roughly like this: 34 percent are very happy, and 46 percent are fairly happy. Meanwhile, 16 percent say that they are not very happy, and nearly 4 percent say that they are not at all happy.

Sources

• Photo: Philippines by Dharion (cc)
• Social Weather Stations Website
• Details of the First Quarter 2008 Survey
• Article about the Survey in Philippine Daily Inquirer

Please leave a comment below. You can also subscribe to my RSS feed.

5 Funny Songs by Tom Lehrer

The Vatican Rag by Tom Lehrer.

Tom Lehrer, who is eighty this year, is an American mathematician who wrote and performed musical satire in the 1950s and 1960s. Best known for his darkly comic Poisoning Pigeons in the Park, his political and social satire also included the Vatican Rag, National Brotherhood Week, Who’s Next and We Will All Go Together When We Go.

Lehrer is in my directory of famous atheists. In 1996, he said that, while he was not a spiritual person - “I find enough mystery in mathematics to satisfy my spiritual needs. I think, for example, that pi is mysterious enough (don’t get me started!) without having to worry about God” - he believed that to be an atheist was almost as arrogant as to be a fundamentalist. However, by 2000, he had told Cosmik Debris magazine “I used to think atheists were arrogant, but now I am one and I like it.”

Tom Lehrer on YouTube

Here are four more Tom Lehrer classics from YouTube:

Poisoning Pigeons in the Park by Tom Lehrer

National Brotherhood Week by Tom Lehrer

Who’s Next by Tom Lehrer

We Will All Go Together by Tom Lehrer

Please leave a comment below. You can also subscribe to my RSS feed.

What Makes Australians Happy?

The more money you earn, the less impact that your extra money has on your happiness. If you earn $15,000 a year, an extra $7,000 would make you one percent happier. But if you earn $250,000 a year, it would take an extra $625,000 to make you that same one percent happier. That’s one finding of a report that summarises seven years of research into what makes Australians happy.

The report is published by the health insurance company Australian Unity, in partnership with the Australian Centre on Quality of Life which is based at Deakin University. They also found that Australian women are more satisfied with their lives than men, and that the happiest Australians include those who are getting older, those who live with their partner, especially married people, and those who volunteer generally.

Seven Years of Research

Psychologist Bob Cummins, who wrote the report, says that wellbeing is a longer-lasting, deeper sense of contentment than momentary joy. The seven years of research have examined personal wellbeing elements like health, relationships, safety, standard of living, achievements, and national elements such as social, economic, political and environmental conditions.

Cummins says that the results demonstrate a theory called homeostasis – that wellbeing is maintained by an automatic internal system that enables us to keep feeling positive, even when things go wrong. This means that our wellbeing fluctuates a little, but it holds relatively steady over time. When this self-regulatory system fails, the result is what we know as depression.

Eight Ways to Be Happier

The report suggests eight ways to increase your happiness:

• Connect with family and friends. They’re your best source of support when you need it, and they have the strongest influence on your happiness.
• Watch your spending and save for the proverbial rainy day when money really counts. Happiness gained through buying new ‘things’ is fleeting.
• Engage in activities that give you a sense of achievement. Consider becoming a volunteer or taking up a hobby that challenges your mind or body.
• Review your home and personal security. Also avoid situations that make you feel unsafe, such as walking alone at night.
• Find a balance between work and leisure that is right for you. This balance is different for each person – there is no simple formula.
• Look after your health. Staying healthy is all about balance. Eat reasonably well, be active and have regular doctor checks.
• Get involved in your community. Get to feel connected by knowing your neighbours, volunteering, and being involved in local activities.
• Keep some of your life simple. Take some time out of your day for personal time. Try concentrating on your breathing for two minutes.

Sources:

• Photo: Botanic Gardens, Melbourne by Tim Parkinson (cc)
• The Report in PDF form
• Australian Unity website
• Australian Centre on Quality of Life
• Bob Cummins homepage

Please leave a comment below. You can also subscribe to my RSS feed.

The Unelectable Atheist President

An atheist running for President of the United States today faces roughly the same level of prejudice from voters as a female candidate would have faced in the 1940s while women workers were being sacked to make way for returning soldiers.

Or as a black candidate would have faced in the 1960s while Martin Luther King was delivering his ‘I have a Dream’ speech. Or as a gay candidate would have faced in the 1980s while many of the straight community were blaming gay men for an AIDS epidemic.

In 2007, a Gallup poll revealed that most Americans would not vote for a well-qualified atheist as President. Incredibly, half of all American moderates, and three in ten liberals, said they would not vote for a well-qualified atheist who was nominated by their own party. If you look at similar polls since the 1930s, you will see that black and female politicians are gradually escaping from this prejudice – or, at least, voters are less willing to openly admit such prejudice to pollsters – but atheist politicians, like gay politicians, still have decades of catching up ahead of them.

The question that Gallup asked, for USA Today, in Feb 2007, was: If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be [atheist etc], would you vote for that person?

Gallup has asked similar questions in Jan-Feb 1937, Sep 1949, Sep 1958, Mar 1969, Jul 1978, Jul 1987, Aug 1987, and Feb 1999.

Photo: The White House by David Paul Ohmer (cc)

Please leave a comment below. You can also subscribe to my RSS feed.

Is this the World’s Happiest Man?

When Tibetan Buddhist monks meditate for many years, they gradually change the molecular structure of their brains.

MRI scans show they experience more activity in the left pre-frontal cortex, a part of the brain that is associated with happiness, and less activity in the right-hand side, which handles negative thoughts.

And Mathieu Ricard, the 62-year-old French interpreter for Tibet’s Dalai Lama, has happiness levels that are literally off the scale of the measuring instruments. That’s the conclusion of American neuroscientist Richard Davidson, who has spent over fifteen years testing these theories.

The idea that we gradually reshape our brains is not new – taxi drivers change the parts of their brains that deal with spatial awareness, and concert musicians the parts that deal with musical pitch – but Davidson was among the first to apply the tests scientifically to an area that seemed much more abstract and subjective.

Richard Davidson’s Tests

Davidson and his team began by travelling to India to study the brain activity of monks who practiced three different types of meditation:

• Focused attention, where the monks specifically train themselves to focus on a single object for long periods of time
• Cultivating compassion, where they envision negative events that cause anger or irritability, and then transform by applying compassion
• Open presence, where they are acutely and purely aware of whatever thought, emotion or sensation is present, without reacting to it.

They soon discovered that monks who had completed more than ten thousand hours of meditation had high levels of brain activity associated with positive emotions. Then some Asian monks traveled to Davidson’s lab in the University of Wisconsin in America, where their reactions were compared to those of volunteers who had only some limited training in meditation.

The MRI scans measured brain activity that is associated with happiness, on a scale of +0.3 at the negative end to -0.3 on the
positive end. One monk, Mathieu Ricard, scored literally off the scale at -0.45. He may well be the happiest man in the world. So who is Mathieu Ricard and how did he reach this state?

Mathieu Ricard’s Life

Ricard was born in France in 1946. His father, Jean-François Revel, was a philosopher and mother, Yahne Le Toumelin, was a painter. Ricard studied classical music, ornithology and photography and in 1972 completed a Ph.D. in cellular genetics at the Institut Pasteur under Nobel Laureate François Jacob. He then moved to the Himalayas to study Tibetan Buddhism. He has lived since then as a Buddhist monk at the Shechen Monastery in Nepal, also acting as French interpreter for Tibet’s spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama.

Ricard has written many books, including

• The Monk and the Philosopher, a best-seller that consisted of dialogues with his father Jean-François Revel
• The Quantum and the Lotus, a conversation with the astrophysicist Trinh Xuan Thuan
• Happiness: A Guide to Developing Life’s Most Important Skill, written with Daniel Goleman
• Motionless Journey, a photographic record of a year-long retreat in the foothills of the Himalayas.

He gives the proceeds from his books to humanitarian projects in Tibet, Nepal, India, and Bhutan. Since 2000, he has been an active member of the Mind and Life Institute as well as participating in the scientific research on brain plasticity headed by Davidson.

Ricard’s Views on Happiness

In the video below, you can listen to Ricard discussing happiness at TED (an annual four-day conference on Technology, Entertainment and Design, that takes place in Monteray in California).

Sources:

• Results of the study: Long-term meditators self-induce high-amplitude gamma synchrony during mental practice, PNAS, November 16, 2004, vol. 101 no. 46 16369-16373
• Mathieu Ricard Website
• Richard Davidson Homepage
• The Happiest Man in the World? Anthony Barnes, The Independent, 21 January 2007
• Is Buddhism Good for Your Health? Stephen Hall, New York Times, 14 Sep 2003

Please leave a comment below. You can also subscribe to my RSS feed.

Next Page »