Atheism is a Positive Belief

Atheism is a passive label for a positive, radical belief system: the assertion that reality is natural, and that we as natural beings are responsible for interpreting and governing our lives without being directed by imaginary supernatural beings.

Atheists believe that we live in a natural world, which is part of a natural universe, which may be part of a wider natural reality. And we believe that we, as natural thinking sentient beings, are responsible for discovering the nature of all of this reality, for forming ethical judgments and for governing our lives. As an important part of this belief system, we reject the idea that gods exist, but the core of our belief is the positive assertion that reality is natural.

As it happens, most but not all atheists also typically share some other beliefs and values. We usually believe in rational thinking, ethical behaviour and secular government. So, in practice, this is an extra set of secondary beliefs that most but not all atheists can also unite around. But the core belief that we all share is that reality is natural, and free from supernatural direction.

The Label Atheism

For whatever historical reasons, the word ‘atheism’ happens to be the label that has become most associated with this particular view of the world. Etymologically, the label ‘atheism’ seems to be passive (it derives from the Greek ‘atheos’, meaning ungodly). But the concept that the label points to is a positive naturalistic belief system.

The belief that reality is natural, and that we as thinking sentient beings are responsible for discovering the nature of this reality and forming ethical judgments and governing our lives, is not an added set of positive beliefs, separate from the absence of a belief in gods. Instead, these positive beliefs are at the core of the concept labelled ‘atheism’.

The passive etymology of the label is a distraction. Many passive labels also describe positive concepts. The label ‘freedom’ means not being coerced, but the positive concept that it describes is the ability to make our own choices. Fearless people are brave. Nonsectarian people are tolerant. Blameless people are innocent. Nongovernmental groups are independent. And atheists believe that reality is natural.

Using Other Labels

Historically, many atheists have tried to address this issue by adopting labels that sound more positive than the label ‘atheism’. We can call ourselves humanists, rationalists, secularists, freethinkers and a host of other names. All of these labels serve useful purposes, and there are times when I would describe myself in each of these terms.

But none of these labels capture the core, the essence, of the radical belief system that we share, as effectively as the word ‘atheist’ does. For whatever historical reasons, ‘atheism’ happens to be the label that has become most associated with our core beliefs. So, in practice, choosing not to use the label serves to marginalise the concept.

We may choose to use another label, because we are uncomfortable with the label atheist. But, to others, what comes across is that we are uncomfortable with the concept of atheism. Or we may choose to define atheism as a passive absence-of-belief, because it puts the onus of proof on theists in debates. Which is tactically useful in certain circumstances.

Using the Label Atheist

Instead, I believe that we should use the label atheist with integrity and pride. We should seek to reframe it as the positive, radical belief system that it represents. And we should assertively challenge theists whenever they use the idea of gods to dictate how we live our lives.

As atheists, we can and should campaign on such issues as rational thinking, ethical behaviour and secular government. We should do this as individuals, as groups of atheists, and as part of wider campaigns that include people with any beliefs about gods.

But it is only by adopting the label atheist, with integrity and pride, that we can also promote our radical core belief: that reality is natural, and that we as natural beings are responsible for interpreting and governing our own lives without being directed by imaginary supernatural beings.

Photo: In Celebration by Midirisyu (cc)

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

Most of Everything is Nothing

After I posted this series of articles about why I assume that reality is basically as it seems after applying reason to the evidence of my senses, I got a nice email from Bob Rees, who pointed out that:

Nothing is what it appears to our puny senses. 99.999999999999 per cent of the volume of ordinary matter, say, a concrete block, is empty space. And even the things we see and touch have to be interpreted by our brains before they ‘mean’ anything to us.

Bob is correct. Everything around us seems to be made up of tiny particles of matter called quarks and leptons, plus huge amounts of empty space, plus invisible substances called dark matter, all being moved around by energy forces like electromagnetism and gravity. 

• Atoms are incredibly tiny. A single grain of sand contains sixty million million million atoms. 
• Quarks are even tinier than atoms. If an atom was enlarged to the size of the planet earth, then each quark at the centre of it would be smaller than a tennis ball. 
• Leptons are even tinier than quarks, if you can imagine one geometric point being smaller than another. The most familiar lepton is the electron.
• Empty space makes up nearly all of every atom. Returning to our imaginary giant atom, you have clusters of quarks, each quark smaller than a tennis ball, in the middle; then a huge sphere of empty space the size of the planet earth; then a cloud cover of tiny electrons around the surface.

Here are some more fascinating details of the tiny particles of matter inside each atom:

Quarks cluster together in groups, called protons and neutrons, which form the nucleus of an atom. The atom is completed when this nucleus is surrounded by a cloud of leptons called electrons. Then huge amounts of tiny atoms combine to form either a millimetre-wide grain of sand in Cairo, or a hundred-metre-high Redwood tree in California, or a medium-sized human body such as yours.

Atoms are incredibly tiny. A single grain of sand contains sixty million million million atoms. If you were to count these atoms, taking a second to count each one, it would take you two million million years. Now, that’s not practical, as you would need lunch-breaks and time to sleep and you may not even live for two million million years. So, if you hired other people to help you do this counting, and they all counted non-stop for an average eight-hour five-day working week, without any holidays, then the entire population of the world could spend their entire working lives to count just one twentieth of the atoms in one single grain of sand.

Quarks are even tinier than atoms. If an atom was enlarged to the size of the planet earth, then each quark at the centre of it would be smaller than a tennis ball. Quarks are so tiny that physicists treat them as geometric points that do not even have a physical size, though they do have a tiny mass and a tiny electrical charge. Quarks cluster together in groups of three, to form either a proton (which has a positive electrical charge) or a neutron (which has no electrical charge). Some atoms contain more quarks than others: Hydrogen, the lightest atom, has just one proton and one neutron; while gold has 79 protons and 118 neutrons.

Leptons are even tinier than quarks, if you can imagine one geometric point being smaller than another. The most familiar lepton is the electron, which moves at over 1,000 miles a second. Each electron has a tiny negative electrical charge, which causes it to be pulled towards any nearby proton, which has a positive electrical charge. Most of the time, an electron is just a tiny cloud of possible locations where the electron might actually be. This tiny cloud surrounds the nucleus of an atom, and tries to get as close as it can to a proton within it. Then the cloud settles at a certain distance away, based on the energy level of the electron. 

Empty space makes up nearly all of every atom. Returning to our imaginary giant atom, you have clusters of quarks, each quark smaller than a tennis ball, in the middle; then a huge sphere of empty space the size of the planet earth; then a cloud cover of tiny electrons around the surface. Now reduce this imaginary giant atom to its proper size, so that sixty million million million of them fit into a grain of sand. Then combine lots of these tiny bundles to form stones and trees, ants and whales, tables and computers, planets and stars. And you realise that nearly all of everything is actually nothing. The idea that everyday objects are solid matter is only an illusion.

In a later article, I’ll look at the question of how energy causes these tiny particles to move, and why we don’t fall through the floor with every step that we take. But in the meantime, sit back and marvel at the fascinating worlds with a world that exist within every grain of sand.

Photo: Large Hadron Collider at CERN by CERN (cc)

Postscript: The photo above is part of the Large Hadron Collider project at CERN in Switzerland. Tiny protons are sent hurtling around a 27 km long underground tunnel at almost the speed of light, to investigate what happens when they collide together. For scale, see the man at the centre of the bottom of the main photo.

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

Atheist and Humanist Groups

How do Atheist groups differ from Humanist groups? And how can we best work together to promote a rational, ethical and secular society?

This article examines the aims of American Atheists, Atheist Alliance International, the International Humanist and Ethical Union, and ten Atheist or Humanist groups in various countries around the world, and concludes:

(1) The labels are unimportant in themselves. Most atheists and most humanists share most of the same fundamental beliefs and values. We reject the idea that gods exist and all that follows from that idea, and we usually support rational enquiry into the nature of reality, mutual empathy as the basis of ethical relations, and secular equality as the basis of civic government.

(2) The labels are useful in practice. They enable independently-minded people to socialise and bond together using whatever self-description that we each feel most comfortable with, and whatever nuances of emphasis that we each prefer. They can also enable us to promote our aims using whatever label we feel is most useful in different circumstances, whether that be atheist, humanist, secularist, rationalist, skeptical or freethought. 

(3) If we are to achieve a rational, ethical, secular society, then all people and groups who reject the idea that gods exist should work together, in a series of shifting alliances, on a series of issue-based campaigns and projects, at whatever level of involvement we feel most comfortable. We should find ways to use our differences in emphasis to jointly promote our shared aims.

In this article, I examine: What is atheism? What is humanism? How do atheism and humanism differ? What do Atheist groups want? What do Humanist groups want? How do Atheist and Humanist groups differ? And how can we best work together to promote a rational, ethical, secular society?

1. What is Atheism?

Many people define atheism in different ways, but all atheists reject the idea that gods exist. Some people define weak atheists as people who lack a belief that gods exist, and strong atheists as people who have a belief that gods do not exist. Some people define agnosticism as a subset of atheism, because agnostics lack a belief that gods exist. And some pragmatic atheists simply ignore the idea of gods as being in practice irrelevant to their lives.

But how do active atheists define themselves? American Atheists, which was founded in 1963, is an umbrella network for over sixty affiliated Atheist groups. It grew out of two legal cases related to separation of church and state. In those cases, they defined Atheism as including: “An Atheist seeks to know his fellow man rather than to know a god. An Atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An Atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death… He wants an ethical way of life… He believes that we are our brothers’ keepers, and are keepers of our own lives, that we are responsible persons and the job is here and the time is now.”

Atheist Alliance International, which was founded in 1991, is another umbrella network for almost sixty Atheist groups, most in the United States and the rest in ten other countries. Atheist Alliance International promotes these beliefs and values: (1) Atheism is living one’s life without the supernatural. (2) Every human being is entitled to freedom of conscience. (3) Scientific inquiry has proved the best process for improving the physical welfare of humankind. (4) Human compassion and empathy are crucial to improving the human condition. (5) Reason and cooperation are essential to meeting the challenges that confront humankind. (6) We are responsible for humane interaction with other animals and for the preservation of our habitable planet. (7) Humanistic atheists work toward fostering cooperative diversity among humans.

2. What is Humanism?

Many people define humanism in different ways, and some may call themselves secular humanists or even religious humanists. The International Humanist and Ethical Union, which was founded in 1952, promotes one set of widely accepted definitions. The IHEU brings together over 100 Humanist and related groups in more than 40 countries. (The IHEU call their life-stance Humanist, with a capital H and no qualifying adjectives. I follow this custom in this article.)

All member groups of the IHEU must agree this minimum statement: “Humanism is a democratic and ethical life-stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality.”

In Amsterdam in 2002, the IHEU adopted these points as defining world Humanism: (1) Humanism is ethical. (2) Humanism is rational. (3) Humanism supports democracy and human rights. (4) Humanism insists that personal liberty must be combined with social responsibility. (5) Humanism is a response to the widespread demand for an alternative to dogmatic religion. (6) Humanism values artistic creativity and imagination and recognises the transforming power of art. (7) Humanism is a life stance aiming at the maximum possible fulfillment through the cultivation of ethical and creative living.

3. How do Atheism and Humanism differ?

Technically, Humanists include some but not all atheists. Some people say atheism is simply the absence of a belief in gods, while Humanism is a specific naturalistic life-stance. (Humanists coined the word life-stance to describe a person’s relationship with whatever they accept as being of ultimate importance. The word life-stance can be applied, neutrally, to religion and alternatives to religion). So let us examine this proposition.

In reality, atheism is more than simply the absence of a belief in gods. If you reject the idea that gods exist, you automatically also reject the ideas that gods are responsible for revealing truths about reality, or creating ethical judgments, or governing our lives. So you automatically accept that we as humans are responsible for self-determining these aspects of our lives. This is not an added positive belief, separate from atheism: it is a necessary part of atheism to automatically adopt a positive naturalistic life-stance.

What, then, of the specific principles of the life-stance labelled Humanist? For most atheists, they are simply the type of principles that flow naturally from the type of thinking that led us to atheism in the first place: rational enquiry into the nature of reality, mutual empathy as the basis of ethical relations, and secular equality as the basis of civic government. The life-stance of most atheists is broadly the same as the life-stance of most Humanists.

Atheism and Humanism are, therefore, in most cases, two different labels for the same thing: rejecting the idea that gods exist and adopting broadly the same naturalistic life-stance under one or other label. So why do some people prefer one label over the other? Is it merely because of the etymology of the labels? Or is there a serious difference of emphasis? To examine this further, let’s look at the aims of ten sample groups in different countries.

4. What do Atheist groups want?

Explicitly ‘Atheist’ groups share a broadly similar core of aims, adapted to local circumstances. As one example of the many such groups in the USA, the Atheist Coalition of San Diego has these aims: (1) To keep a firm, tall, and wide wall separating church and state. (2) To promote atheism as a worthwhile and wholesome point of view. (3) To promote science literacy.

The IBKA in Germany has these aims: (1) To represent the political interests of non-religious, agnostics and atheists. (2) To support human rights, rational thinking, individual self-determination and tolerance. (3) To support the separation of church and state. (4) To criticize religion as an ideology, and the socio-political role of the churches.

The Atheist Foundation of Australia has these aims: (1) To encourage informed free-thought on philosophical and social issues. (2) To safeguard the rights of all non-religious people. (3) To serve as a focal point for the fellowship of non-religious people. (4) To offer reliable information in place of superstition and to offer the methodology of reason in place of faith. (5) To promote atheism.

Atheist Centre in India has two broad sets of aims: (1) To counsel victims of, and to challenge, issues such as the untouchability and caste systems, superstitions, witchcraft and sorcery. (2) To promote issues such as science, ecology, environment, social cohesion, sex education, family planning, and secular and humanist education, art and culture.

The Atheist Association of Finland has these aims: (1) To protect the legal and cultural interests of atheists. (2) To separate the state from both state churches. (3) To enlighten and educate citizens. (4) To promote freedom of atheism, religion, belief and civil rights. (5) To promote secular and atheistic culture. (6) To investigate scientific atheism.

5. What do Humanist groups want?

Explicitly ‘Humanist’ groups also share a broadly similar core of aims, again adapted to local circumstances. The American Humanist Association has these aims: (1) To be a clear, democratic voice for Humanism. (2) To increase public awareness and acceptance of Humanism. (3) To establish, protect and promote the position of Humanists in society. (4) To develop and advance Humanist thought and action.

The Society for Humanism Nepal has these aims: (1) A rational society wherein all enjoy equal status as human beings. (2) To influence people from all walks of life. (3) To promote a scientific way of life. (4) To promote democracy and justice with a Humanist bias. (5) To promote Humanistic ethical practices. (6) To raise awareness about human obligation.

The Humanist Society of South Australia has these aims: (1) To promote a Humanist approach to personal living and society. (2) To facilitate Humanist interaction and communication. (3) To lobby State and Federal Governments about important issues of the day. (4) To tackle issues on which politicians have a “conscience vote”. (5) To hold social events and outings.

The British Humanist Association has these aims: (1) To promote Humanism. (2) To support and represent people who seek to live good lives without religious or superstitious beliefs. (3) To work for an open and inclusive society with freedom of belief and speech. (4) To work for an end to the privileged position of religion - and Christianity in particular - in society.

The Nigerian Humanist Movement has these aims: (1) A rational, constructive approach to human affairs. (2) To offer a positive alternative to all religious and dogmatic creeds. (3) To uphold and defend the human rights of Humanists and of the general public. (4) To improve social conditions. (5) To support the widest conception of education and enlightenment.

6. How do Atheist and Humanist groups differ?

Most Atheist and Humanist groups share broadly the same fundamental aims, though each group phrases them differently. They usually support rational enquiry into the nature of reality, mutual empathy as the basis of ethical relations, and secular equality as the basis of civic government. And they usually campaign to promote these aims within society.

There are some differences in emphasis. Some groups that label themselves as Atheist can be more assertive in how they campaign, and less deterred by how others might perceive the word atheist. Some groups that label themselves as Humanist can be more focused on creating a common Humanist identity as an alternative to religion, and may conduct secular services for weddings, baby-naming and funerals.

But these differences in emphasis do not depend on the labels. Any of the above groups could conduct their activities with integrity under the label Atheist or Humanist, or indeed Secularist, Rationalist, Skeptical, Freethought or Freedom from Religion. In practice, the labels and activities of each group reflect the diversity of personalities and self-definitions among independent thinkers, and the historical and social circumstances in which each group operates. 

For example, Britain has three main national groups that have been active since Victorian times. The National Secular Society, founded in 1866, campaigns against religious influence in government, education and public life. The British Humanist Association, founded in 1896, campaigns on the same issues, and also conducts secular funerals, weddings and baby-namings. The Rationalist Association, founded in 1899, supports and promotes humanism and rational enquiry and opposes religious dogma, primarily through publishing. 

In other countries, similar groups were formed in different times, in different circumstances, and with different labels. However, while the labels are unimportant in themselves, they are useful in practice. They enable independently-minded people to socialise and bond together using whatever self-description that we each feel most comfortable with, and whatever nuances of emphasis that we each prefer. And they can enable us to work together on shared aims, using whatever label they feel is most useful in different circumstances.

7. How can we best work together?

Here are ten things that people who reject the idea that gods exist can do together to promote a rational, ethical and secular society, whether or not we choose to join an organised group. Naturally, as we are independently-minded people, each of us will do only whatever combination of these things that we feel comfortable with. But we should find ways to use our differences in emphasis to jointly promote our shared aims.

1. Act as an individual to support relevant groups and campaigns.

2. Join any group or groups that reflect your own preferred self-description.

3. Establish a new group or groups with like-minded people. The group can be based on a shared geographic area, or a shared interest in a specific topic.

4. Don’t try to represent all of the people who reject the idea that gods exist. Just set a specific set of aims for your group, and work to promote those specific aims.

5. Keep the aims and structure simple. Keep the focus outward, on promoting your aims within society. Encourage initiative and avoid complicated approval procedures for activities.

6. Build alliances of small autonomous groups, if necessary with with overlapping memberships. If a group gets too big to function effectively, split it into two groups. Join relevant umbrella networks, whatever label they may use.

7. Respond to relevant issues as they arise. Write to or telephone the media. Question politicians and institutions. Discuss topical issues with friends and colleagues.

8. Run specific pro-active campaigns or projects on specific issues. Each campaign or project can be jointly organised by any combination of groups and or individuals.

9. Brand each campaign or project distinctly, so that it can be supported by people who may not agree on other issues that are distinct from that specific campaign. Have specific, measurable and achievable goals. Keep your focus on a manageable number of projects at a time.

10. Each campaign or project could focus on one specific aspect of: (a) promoting scientific enquiry and challenging dogmatic creeds about the nature of reality; (b) promoting mutual empathy and challenging supernatural commands as the basis of ethical relations; or (c) promoting secular equality and challenging religious control as the basis of civic society.

Image: Godless Americans March on Washington by Anosmia (cc)

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Why I am an Atheist

I am an atheist because I reject the idea that gods exist, in the same way and for the same reasons that I reject the ideas that that the earth is balanced on the back of a sea turtle, that homeopathy is more useful than a heart transplant, that Rapunzel wove her hair into a ladder or Rumpelstiltskin wove straw into gold, that stepping on a pavement crack will break my mother’s back, that a deposed Nigerian prince wants to email me several million dollars, that Uri Geller can bend spoons with his mind, that I am in danger from vampires or zombies or broken mirrors, or that I am protected by angels or leprechauns or horseshoes.

Reasons to Believe

Like many people, you may sincerely accept some of the above ideas as being true, either because you have experienced something unexplainable that has caused your brain to generate a belief in your God or Uri Geller, or because you feel happier when you believe in heaven or homeopathy, or because you prefer your life to be guided by holy writings or horoscope readings, or because you think that people behave better when they are being scrutinised by Satan or Santa, or because life is just simpler when you seem to believe what most people seem to believe.