A Collection of Notes from the Atheist Alliance International Convention: Part One

This weekend I attended the Atheist Alliance International Convention in Long Beach, CA.  The conference started on Thursday evening, but the meat of the content was on Saturday, which is where my running diary, of sorts, begins.

The convention was wonderful.  As a first time attendee, I felt welcomed and well taken care of by the hosts.  The meals were delicious, the speakers were engaging, the Q&A sessions were excellent, the small group break-out sessions were diverse in options, the panelists were well informed and all the attendees were polite, friendly, courteous and thoughtful.  I had a wonderful experience, but before I give too much of it away, I’ll just start right in with how it all went down.

On Saturday morning at 5:30am, I woke up and by 6:30 I was on the road to LA for the convention.  Traffic was light, and the drive was uneventful, except for my racing mind.  I didn’t quite know what to expect, but my expectations were high, and for some reason I was nervous.  I arrived at the Queen Mary just before 8:30am, registered and choose to go hear a talk given by the editor of The Humanist magazine, Jennifer Bardi.  Jennifer’s talk was about “Anchoring your Atheist Story”, intended for the writers among the crowd.  

Jennifer’s main message was that there is a fast-growing market for good writers with a free-thinking perspective, provided they write about something other than their ”testimonial” about how they left their religion (and just as I was about to write my testimonial here on CCD, hahaha). 

Apparently Reason, Skeptical Inquirer, Skeptic Mag, Free Inquiry, The Humanist and Secular Nation magazines get thousands of submissions on this topic per year, which brought a smile to my face.  I was glad to hear that so many people were dying to tell their atheist ”coming out” story, so to speak. 

It actually put me at ease, because I realized I was surrounded with people who wanted to talk, who wanted to debate, who wanted to hear all the facts and who wanted to share of themselves.  In short, I knew I could approach the people at the convention knowing that they’d be open to talking.  These folks want to be heard, no doubt about it!  And good for them.     

What Jennifer advocated was allowing your personal story to be incorporated into a specific article regarding a unique topic.  Imbedding your personal story as anecdotal evidence for quoted statistics can be very effective.  We covered topics like how to deal with editors, what mistakes NOT to make, how often to follow up on submissions, 3rd person novels vs. memoirs, how to elevate a character’s opinion in a novel, the power of human mythology, humor and atheism, and others.  I thought Bardi’s talk was very informative, and I took away the necessary information I needed to approach my goal of publishing a few papers this fall.

One other thought I had during Jennifer’s Q&A session (and for the rest of the weekend) was that the folks asking the question shared a trait; everyone wanted advice on where to ’start their fight’.  It seems that many free-thinkers are overwhelmed by the evidence in their favor, and have a tough time prioritizing it when they consider what they want to write about.  I often find myself in the same boat and it was nice to know that others were trying to sort out what matters most, too.

At 10am, the first set of workshops ended, and I attended a second talk, given by Ellen Johnson, founder of Godless Americans Political Action Committee.  GAMPAC endorses candidates for public office who support the First Amendment separation of church and state; defend equal rights and protections for our nation’s godless Americans; inform our community of the voting records of their elected representatives on issues of concern; and support the free-thinker’s goal of having “a place at the table” in formulating public policy.  In addition, GAMPAC will facilitate the training and development of those godless Americans seeking to bring their organizations talents to the field of electoral politics.

She talked about GAMPAC as representing a ‘voting block’, and stressed the sway that some voting blocks hold over elections. “Remember when Kerry and Bush were out shooting animals during their campaigns? What voting block did that represent?”

A man called out, “The NRA.” Another woman called out, “Sarah Palin!”

Buuurn!!

Johnson’s big point was to Vote Atheism First.  Of course.  No self-respecting, special interest, political action spokesperson would say anything less.  Noting that all other issues are perfectly well represented, she argues that if you REALLY believe in the Separation of Church and State, you’ll make it your first priority at the ballot box.  I don’t disagree, but obviously atheism isn’t every free-thinker’s first priority when voting, nor should it be, necessarily.

Johnson then went on to discuss, in some detail, how to protest, how to become more politically active, getting grass roots organization going, running for office, making sure to ask for equal access when public land is being used and the empowering feelings that political activity can give you. 

“The meek do not inherit the earth,” added Johnson, in a plea to her audience to NEVER leave a place because the religious are doing something they shouldn’t (public school prayers, etc.).  She argued that the free-thinking community must stay put and stand our ground on the issue of mis-using public land/funds.  One story she told was about a free-thinking high school kid, who staged a Druid prayer circle around a tree, while public land was being used for a Christian prayer circle nearby. I thought that was a funny thing to picture.

Oh, incidentally, someone cut that tree down the next night.

This talk was very well attended and it seems that of the people in attendance, political action was a big priority. These were VOTERS. Definitely. And while I recognize the statistical value of one vote, I think the political activity, and the vote that is representative of said political activity (which so many of the convention attendees shared) was notable and praiseworthy, no matter your stance on God. I remember thinking, “These people are willing participants in the competitive marketplace of ideas, and I love it!”

Ok, 11:30, time for lunch. Like I said, all the food was delicious. But as I sit, and eat, and talk to those around me, I can’t help but be surprised by the diversity. I see people from all walks of life. Young, old, black and white, lobbyists, authors, Europeans, Africans, Pacific Islanders, Australians, film producers, editors, actors, bankers, lawyers, business people, politicians, pot-heads, musicians, and regular Joe & Jane, too. There were more men than women, and apparently this is not lost on the AAI president Margaret Downey, who spoke about Women in the Bible on Sunday morning (which we’ll get to later on).

The first speaker during the luncheon was Julia Sweeney, the 2006 Richard Dawkins Award winner for her CD & Film production of “Letting Go of God”, which is her wonderful tale of how she left the Catholic faith. It covers her journey of struggling through the initial doubts, the confusion of TRYING to believe, the disconnect from her family, the process of admitting what she really thought to herself, being labeled an ‘atheist’ as if she had the plague, and several other aspects of the atheist ‘coming out’ process, all told in an engaging and heart-felt way. I know several people who have been heavily impacted by listening to her story, especially those in or near the Catholic faith.

She began her talk telling us all about the process of trying to explain Santa Claus to her daughter, and what a weird thing it is that our culture just conditions children to ‘believe’ things. She was conflicted on what to do; tell the child, don’t tell the child, let her live the life her peers are living vs. telling her the truth. She ended up scaring her with the idea that some man was has been spying on you and your every moral move, was going to break into their house through the chimney after she fell asleep. Poor kid. Anyhow, Julia just decided to tell her the truth about the whole situation and to explain the story and the tradition to her daughter, who reacted fairly rationally about the whole thing and doesn’t seem to have any permanent damage done.

Julia ended her talk and sang a song with folk singer and free-thinker Jill Sobule, who accompanied on the guitar. The song, “Letting Go of God” had the whole room of 300+ people singing along to the chorus and smiling. I think there were even some tears. (no, not by me…) It was moving, in a way, and also tremendously over the top, and reminded me of my hometown, informal church services where people clap and wave their arms to different songs. I’m just not like that. I guess I just internalize it a bit more than some. Anyhow, it was a nice little introduction to the luncheon awards. It also strikes me as people are singing along that SO MANY of us HAD to let go of God. Very few were raised in a secular, naturalistic household. I wonder what the future holds and how mahy kids will be spared that process in the next generation?

The Richard Dawkins Award, by the way, is given by AAI every year to a worthy recipient “whose contributions raise public awareness of the nontheist life stance; who through writings, media, the arts, film, and/or the stage advocates increased scientific knowledge; who through work or by example teaches acceptance of the nontheist philosophy; and whose public posture mirrors the uncompromising nontheist life stance of Dr. Richard Dawkins.”

Past award winners include James Randi (magician, skeptic, writer, ‘03), Ann Druyan (editor of The Varieties of Scientific Experience, ‘04), Penn & Teller (magic, comedy, ‘05), Julia Sweeney (actor, ‘06), and Daniel Dennett (author, professor and one of the most lucid, philosophical minds on earth, ‘07).

This year the award was given to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, to whom this blog is dedicated. Ayaan is an outspoken defender of women’s rights in Islamic societies. She escaped her suffocating life and arranged marriage in 1992, when she applied for asylum in the Netherlands. In 2003, Ayaan began a 4 year term of service on the Dutch Parliament, and also helped produce Submission, a film about the oppression of women in conservative Islamic cultures. The director of the film, Theo Van Gogh, was shot and killed my an Islamic extremist shortly after the film was released.

Although Ayaan was scheduled to appear at the conference, the Queen Mary Hotel (which is a permanently docked old cruise ship) would not allow Ayaan aboard, due to security threats. You see, Ayaan, too has lived under threat of death for over 5 years. Militant muslims have forced her to travel under armed guard every waking moment of her life. Bomb threats are not rare in her life, and as a result, Homeland Security and The Queen Mary decided that she should accept the award from a remote location through a video feed.

Just mull that over in your head for a while. Apostasy, in some religious cultures, is punishable by death, and there are plenty of people who would like nothing more than to see Ayaan Hirsi Ali die. This is as deep into the insane asylum as it gets when it comes to championing belief over rational discourse.

I think everyone in the room has a sense of at least some fear. Maybe they did sneak a bomb onto the boat? Maybe we’re all about to be scattered across Long Beach like confetti? Scary stuff, and not something I think about for very long, because just then, the video messages start playing on the video messages from the past winners.

Dan Dennett notes, “I”m thrilled!… No one better deserves it… I’m inspird by her to keep up the fight.”

Ann Druyan says, “Ayaan is a true hero, even in the face of genuine peril. We love you, Ayaan Hirsi Ali!”

Penn & Teller took this angle, “Listen, we agree with everything you say, but we can only congratulate you if you can assure us that a ‘fatwah’ won’t be put on our heads or anything. Unlike you, we’re cowards!!”

And finally, the mesage from Richard Dawkins touts her as “a brilliant role model the likes of which we need ore of in Islamic countries.” Everyone claps together, and then there is a standing ovation as the screen cuts to a live feed of Ayaan from her undisclosed, underground, nuclear bunker (just kidding).

Her first words were, “Thank goodness for technology, huh?” She is refreshingly optimistic. Her acceptance speech is short & sweet, praising those in the scientific community for their insistence on honesty. She is humble, and unassuming, and having read her book, I can promise that you won’t be disapointed if you decide to pick it up. Women in particular will be touched by her struggle for personal liberty.

When the feed faded away, we took a 15 minute break. I decided to check into the Facebook survey I was doing on my Wall. My status line read, “Do you think Atheism is just another religion?”

The latest response from a friend in Washington, DC said, “Of course it’s not a religion! It’s more like the absence of any religion. It’s living your life based in reality instead of some kind of faith in the unknown. It’s admitting that humans are responsible for their successes and failures, all on their own. It’s recognizing that wars are caused by human greed and natural disasters are caused by changing weather patterns. It’s realizing that there is no invisible entity in the sky listening to a billion prayers and turning his head whenever people suffer. It’s not religion; it’s reality. In response to many of the comments here. I am an atheist. I was raised in a VERY religious home, and was a faithful believer until college. I have never felt more fulfilled in my life than I do know. Empty and lost? Quite the opposite! I don’t have to wonder why God allows bad things to happen to good people. I don’t have to ask questions when the world turns out differently than what I had learned in church. I don’t have struggle when my prayers aren’t being answered. I don’t have to hope that I’m living well enough to satisfy God and reach heaven after death. Life FINALLY has meaning for me! My purpose is to be happy and to share that happiness with others. To make this world as wonderful as possible. To live in the moment and enjoy the beauty around me. To appreciate the humanity and love that we can give each other. To protect the planet so my children can enjoy life as I did. To leave the world a little better than I knew it. I’m not lost. And I don’t always need answers.”

I think that’s a good place to leave off, for now. I’ll be back soon with a review of the highlighted speakers; PZ Myers, Michael Shermer and Michael Newdow.

CCD,

Ben

How To Open a Closed Mind

Author Guy P. Harrison explains the purpose behind his new book, 50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God:

My new book, 50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God (Prometheus Books), is a gentle and down-to-earth skeptical analysis of popular justifications people give for believing in a god or gods. Not specific to one god or one religion, this book gets at the issue of belief where it matters most, in the hearts and minds of believers themselves. Each of the 50 chapters is a real-world reason for belief, not some lofty and complex point that theologians and philosophers toss back and forth. This book is concerned with responding directly to what the vast majority of believers themselves say. It explains how their reasons fail to hold up to scrutiny and shows how a life without belief can be decent, meaningful and satisfying. This book does not attack or insult believers. Its sole purpose is to inspire them to think more deeply and honestly about the possibility that their gods do not exist.

Call me a hopeless optimist, but I am convinced that just about anyone can make the journey from belief to nonbelief. I feel that atheism is the final destination for those who are willing to learn and think. The challenge, of course, is getting people to agree to do all that learning and thinking.

Difficult though far from impossible, this process can be encouraged and supported best by nonbelievers who attempt to understand how believers feel about their gods. Belief is not a math equation gone astray that needs to be corrected. Belief in a god or gods is more like a favorite color, love for a spouse, or patriotism. There are deep emotions, loyalties and self-identity issues involved in most cases. None of these should be taken lightly or dismissed casually by nonbelievers.

Nonbelievers too often fail to actually listen to believers about why they believe. Instead we make the mistake of imposing our own conclusions about belief on them. Nonbelievers risk any chance of meaningful communication when they do this. Yes, it is possible that believers do indeed cling to gods because they are uninformed, emotionally weak, subconsciously afraid, or were ruthlessly indoctrinated into a belief system as children. But none of that sits well with believers. Understandably, they tend to feel insulted or attacked when hit with these assertions. “I am not afraid!”, they say, “I’m not stupid!”; “I’m not brainwashed!” and the walls go up. Dwelling on these possible reasons for belief is no way for a nonbeliever to succeed in sharing insights about skepticism and critical thinking with the vast majority of believers. More often than not, it’s a waste of time and breath.

I have interviewed a long and diverse list of interesting people as a journalist and traveled extensively on six continents. While doing this, religious belief came up many times and I always made the effort to listen, to really listen. To my surprise, I heard the same reasons for belief over and over again, no matter the country, no matter the religion. Believers may disagree about who the real gods are, which religion is correct, who should kill who and so on, but they are remarkably synchronized on why they believe. People believe because they feel their god’s presence; because their god healed them; because the world is so beautiful; because their god makes them happy, etc.

While such reasons may seem trite and unworthy of high-brow analysis or debate in some circles, I think it is important to address the actual reasons people give for believing. If they work for billions of people around the world, generation after generation, then clearly these are powerful ideas and must be taken seriously, regardless of how we nonbelievers may view them.

The tone of 50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God is consistently polite and respectful. I feel this is necessary to keep readers focused on the topic. My goal is to open minds and inspire thinking. I don’t care about winning debate points or showing off my knowledge of history and science. I do not think I am necessarily better or smarter than believers and this book reflects that attitude. The only goal is to encourage believers to think more deeply about whether or not their gods exist. I also included plenty of material in the book for nonbelievers to consider. I share my ideas about common misconceptions nonbelievers have about believers, as well as easy ways to encourage believers to think without losing them as friends.

With this book, believers will not have the option of relying on their favorite knock against works that are skeptical of religious claims: “This is just another angry, rant by a bitter and dogmatic atheist.” They simply can’t play that card this time because I bent over backwards to avoid being offensive or sounding smug. With this book readers are left with nothing to do but consider the ideas. I go after belief, not believers so my personality never gets in the way or distracts from the point of the book which is to show that no gods have good evidence or compelling arguments to justify believing that they are real.

Another important quality of this book is that it treats all gods as equals. I do not pick on one god who happens to be popular at this moment in history over here on my side of the world. Since no gods have ever been scientifically proven to not exist (how is that even possible?), then all gods—including the many we have forgotten about over the last 100,000 years or so—could still be up there swimming in the clouds above us. I doubt it but, technically, it’s possible. Besides, to focus on just one god and a few religions seems to me ethnocentric and unfairly dismissive of past peoples. For example, the ancient Greeks certainly were not a bunch of idiots to be ignored. Why, then, are Apollo, Hera, Zeus and the rest of their gods not given equal footing with Yahweh/Allah/Jesus whenever religion is discussed today? In my book they are. I never make the common mistake of encouraging believers to hold the false confidence that their god is more likely to be real than others.

One thing I am proud of about this book is that feedback from both nonbelievers and believers has been overwhelmingly positive to date. Christians, Muslims and Hindus have contacted me to say that the book gave them a lot to think about. One reader told me he intends to save the book for his children to read when they are older so they will be in a better position to make up their own minds about belief. This tells me that the book works. I specifically wanted 50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God to be the kind of book that nonbelievers can give to friends and family members without fear of confusing or offending. Fortunately, it appears to serve that purpose well. This book is the gentle nudge toward atheism that no one should be afraid of and everyone should consider reading.

Guy P. Harrison is a newspaper columnist and science/history lecturer for a Cayman Islands school. 50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God is published by Prometheus Books. Guy currently is writing a book about human biological diversity. It is scheduled for publication in 2009.

Atheist Alliance International Convention

Hello All,

No posts from me over the next two days. I’ll be at the AAI convention in Long Beach, CA (it’s 5:30 am and I’m about to begin my drive up from San Diego) all weekend. It promises to be a very interesting event. I’m particularly interested to hear PZ Myers, Michael Shermer and Lori-Lipman Brown speak. If you’re in the LA area, I highly suggest checking it out. The convention is at the Queen Mary. If you’re looking for something interesting to read, check out Seth’s comments on Neil’s guest post. That’ll get you thinking.

CCD,

Ben

Graduate Elementary School? Get Married.

A Salafi preacher issued a fatwa this week, stating that it is permissable for girls to enter into marriage at age 9. The preacher, Sheikh Mohamed al-Maghrawi, is a renowned figure in Morocco. He faces stiff opposition from Morocco’s Supreme Scientific Council, who called his views “perverted” and filed a complaint with the court system.

It is argued by those fighting the pronouncement, that al-Maghrawi’s fatwa has no validity because it is based only on one case; that of the Prophet Mohamed marrying what iss believed to be a 9 year old in the 7th century, a story which many researchers and historians don’t take literally in the first place!

I’ll keep you posted on the outcome.

CCD,

Ben

When I Was a Kid I Thought Walt Whitman Made Chocolates

In the preface to Leaves of Grass, Walt Whitman says, “Reexamine all you have been told in school or church or in any book and dismiss whatever insults your own soul; and your very flesh shall be a great poem, and have the richest fluency, not only in words, but in the silent lines of its lips and face and between the lashes of your eyes, and in every motion and every joint of your body.”

Just thought I’d share that sentiment. I like it.

CCD,

Ben

RichardDawkins.net banned in Turkey

As reported in The Guardian on Sept. 18th, a Turkish court has banned RichardDawkins.net after a politically active, creationist Muslim deemed the website defamatory, blasphemous, and insulting.

Adnan Oktar is the author of the Atlas of Creation, an 800 page “rejection of evolution”, which Dawkins described as “preposterous”.

Interestingly enough, Oktar also persuaded a court to block Wordpres.com, so it’s safe to assume that he is not reading CCD. Bummer. Thankfully, Oktar’s bid to have The God Delusion banned in Turkey, failed.

CCD,

Ben

So, I Guess We Missed the Rapture?

Apparently Jesus Christ has already came back! Yep, Dr. José Luis De Jesús Miranda claims to be, wait for it… the 2nd coming of Jesus. Check out his website.

Among other insanity, Jose’ touts a Super Race that he will breed, consisting of “children educated with gospel, free from lies, traditions of man and philosophy.”

I can’t wait! A Super Race that teaches their kids that philosophy is worthless and the gospel is infallible. Where do I sign up?

Now ask yourself, “What conditions must be met for a man to really believe this lunacy?”

Realize that his stance is just one spot on the spectrum of religious belief. You may think he’s crazy, and I’d not waste my time arguing with you. But somewhere out there, there must be the very next, slightly LESS crazy religious nut, however you measure it. And the next, and the next. Sooner or later, we are faced with your everyday preist, mullah, yogi or shaman. At what point do the beliefs become socially acceptable, and why? Is it just a numbers game?

Just food for thought.

CCD,

Ben

Big Surprise! Sam Harris Disapproves of McCain’s VP Choice

Sam’s most recent Newsweek article “In Defense of Elitism” reviews the many reasons Sarah Palin is unqualified to be one step from the Presidency, and it’s nothing short of scathing.

Harris, responding to a Conservative group’s comments which called Palin skeptics “Elitist”, asked this very important question:

How has “elitism” become a bad word in American politics? There is simply no other walk of life in which extraordinary talent and rigorous training are denigrated. We want elite pilots to fly our planes, elite troops to undertake our most critical missions, elite athletes to represent us in competition and elite scientists to devote the most productive years of their lives to curing our diseases. And yet, when it comes time to vest people with even greater responsibilities, we consider it a virtue to shun any and all standards of excellence. When it comes to choosing the people whose thoughts and actions will decide the fates of millions, then we suddenly want someone just like us, someone fit to have a beer with, someone down-to-earth—in fact, almost anyone, provided that he or she doesn’t seem too intelligent or well educated.

He’s right, you know? Why should we want anything less than the most highly capable politicians? Shouldn’t we expect the VP & Cabinet of our Presidential candidates to be elite in as many ways as possible?

The point to be lamented is not that Sarah Palin comes from outside Washington, or that she has glimpsed so little of the earth’s surface (she didn’t have a passport until last year), or that she’s never met a foreign head of state. The point is that she comes to us, seeking the second most important job in the world, without any intellectual training relevant to the challenges and responsibilities that await her. There is nothing to suggest that she even sees a role for careful analysis or a deep understanding of world events when it comes to deciding the fate of a nation. In her interview with Gibson, Palin managed to turn a joke about seeing Russia from her window into a straight-faced claim that Alaska’s geographical proximity to Russia gave her some essential foreign-policy experience. Palin may be a perfectly wonderful person, a loving mother and a great American success story—but she is a beauty queen/sports reporter who stumbled into small-town politics, and who is now on the verge of stumbling into, or upon, world history.

It really is frightening to look back on the day Palin was nominated. I must have received 15 text messages that day, and a few voicemails. Each one asked the same thing – “Who is Sarah Palin?” I didn’t know, and I was quite embarrassed to admit it. I figured it was my fault and that I simply needed to keep my finger on the pulse of American politics a little better.

Nope. They simply picked an unqualified candidate. One who had no business even SNIFFING my VP radar.

The next administration must immediately confront issues like nuclear proliferation, ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (and covert wars elsewhere), global climate change, a convulsing economy, Russian belligerence, the rise of China, emerging epidemics, Islamism on a hundred fronts, a defunct United Nations, the deterioration of American schools, failures of energy, infrastructure and Internet security … the list is long, and Sarah Palin does not seem competent even to rank these items in order of importance, much less address any one of them.

Putting Sarah Palin one step from the presidency is madness. There is too much at stake. Her eager participation in churches where parishioners are engaged in spiritual warfare and enjoy “baptism in the Holy Spirit,” “miraculous healings” and “the gift of tongues” astounds me. But it’s only one example of the monumental gap betwen Palin’s understanding of the world she lives in, and the understanding she would need to achieve in order to be a qualified candidate for Vice President of the United States of America.

CCD,

Ben

Guest Post: A Brief Response to “The God Delusion” – by Neil Shenvi

I’d first like to thank Ben for giving me the opportunity to write this guest post. I’m grateful that the general tenor of this blog is much more respectful than the average Internet discussion. Speaking personally, the arguments raised by this blog have been extremely useful in helping me formulate my faith and clarify the reasons that I am a Christian.

The topic of this post is Richard Dawkins’ book The God Delusion which has been hailed as a convincing defense of atheism. Dawkins sets out not only to defend atheism but to portray its worldview as morally and aesthetically pleasing in a way that atheist thinkers of the past (say, Nietzsche) didn’t. In fact, the majority of the book is not actually an argument against the existence of God, but rather a polemic against the origins, abuses, and beliefs of religion (in Chapters 1,2,5-10). (At this point, let me briefly apologize to anyone reading this post who, at the hands of professed Christians, has experienced some of the hatred that Dawkins describes. It makes me very ashamed, not of Christ, but of those of us who follow him and bring his name into such ill repute). However, since I have limited space, I’ve decided to focus only on the rational arguments for atheism since, to rephrase Dawkins: atheism’s (or religion’s) power to comfort (or offend) doesn’t make it true (or false).

Let me focus explicitly on the end of Chapter 4, since Dawkins presents in it what he calls “the central argument of [his] book” (p. 157; all quotations and page numbers are from the 2006 edition). I have tried to take Dawkins’ statements in context, but please correct me if you think I’ve been unfair.
His argument is as follows:
1. Life is too complex to have come about by pure, random chance
2. It is therefore tempting to believe that it was created by an “intelligent designer”(p. 157) like other complex things
3. However, this belief is false because a designer would be more complicated than the thing designed, and “the whole problem we started out with was the problem of explaining statistical improbability” (p. 158)
4. Darwinian evolution shows how life “with [its] spectacular statistical improbability” could have been produced (p. 158)
5. There is no analogous argument for physics, but the anthropic principle allows us to take “more luck” into account than we normally would in most arguments (p. 158)
6. Probably a better argument for physics does exist
7. Therefore, “God almost certainly does not exist” (p. 158)
I’d like to point out two central inconsistencies in this argument. In addition, I’d like to examine whether Dawkins’ arguments are purely empirical and derived wholly from scientific evidence and reason, or whether they contain an element of “faith”, which I’ll take here to mean a belief consistent with, but not derived from, evidence.

First, let’s note that Dawkins’ argument is essentially one of probability. What Dawkins has attempted to show is not that God’s existence is disproved but merely rendered very, very improbable. In the section Irreducible Complexity, Dawkins points out that “Chance is not a solution [to the problem of biological complexity], given the high levels of improbability we see in living organisms, and no sane biologist would ever suggest that it was.” (p 119-120) We need to be very careful here. Technically speaking, chance is a possible solution to the problem of biological complexity in the sense that it is physically possible that in 40 million B.C. a random fluctuation of molecules accidentally assembled the entire Eocene ecosystem. In the same way, a hurricane in a factory just might assemble a 747. There are no physical laws that are actually violated by either process (not even the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics; e-mail me later). But what Dawkins is saying is that no scientist in his right mind would believe a theory that depended on such a small probability. In contrast, says Dawkins, natural selection provides an elegant mechanism for the production of complex lifeforms: “natural selection is a cumulative process, which breaks the problem of improbability up into small pieces” (p. 121). In other words, given that some primitive form of life exists, natural selection provides a mechanism which ensures that the development of complex life is, if not guaranteed, at least very very probable.

What about the origin of life? Dawkins freely admits that “in once sense, it is a bigger gap” and that the origin of life may have been an “extremely improbable event” (p. 135). When he has to conjure up odds for the sake of argument, Dawkins throws out a truly improbable number (1 in a billion, p. 138), although he does say later that he “doesn’t for a moment believe the origin of life was anywhere near so improbable in practice” (p. 138). Doesn’t this mean that complex life existing at all is incredibly improbable? No, says Dawkins, because of the anthropic principle (Dawkins is actually invoking the weak -as opposed to the strong- anthropic principle at this point). There are a billion, billion planets in the universe. Even if the chances of life evolving spontaneously on a random planet is one in a billion, that means that there are a billion planets on which life began, and given natural selection, nearly all of them will have evolved complex life. Of course we are on one of the lucky ones, because if we were on one of the unlucky ones, we wouldn’t be sitting here wondering why there is life on our planet.

Let me try to summarize Dawkins’ argument thus far: given the (weak) anthropic principle, and natural selection, it is not at all surprising (i.e. it is probable) that there is a planet (perhaps many planets) somewhere in the universe which contain complex, sentient life like humans; there is no need to invoke a designer. Now we come to the problem: what Dawkins has presented thus far is not an argument, but a framework. He set out to show that there is a natural and probable explanation for the origin of complex life in the universe. If P is the probability for the existence of sentient life somewhere in the universe, then he claims that P is large (say > 50%), so we need not look for a creator God. According to his argument, P = p * N where p is the probability of spontaneous biogenesis and the subsequent evolution of life on a random planet and N is the number of planets in the universe. Since astronomers and cosmologists tell us that N = 10^20, the final, conclusive step in his argument is to provide an estimate of p and to show that p * N is large. So what is the probability that Dawkins calculates? He doesn’t provide one. Although this number is the cornerstone of his argument, he makes absolutely no attempt to calculate it.

Since this number is such a crucial piece of his argument, let’s try to estimate it using Dawkins’ (admittedly low) number 1/10^9 for the probability of the spontaneous genesis of life on a random planet and his estimate of the number of planets in the universe, 10^20. If these numbers are correct, then the probability that sentient life evolved somewhere in the universe is essentially 100%. But are we missing anything? Later in the chapter, Dawkins mentions that “it may be that the origin of life is not the only major gap in the evolutionary story that is bridged by sheer luck, anthropically justified. For example, my colleague… has suggested that the origin of the eucaryotic cell was an even more … statistically improbable step than the origin of life. The origin of consciousness might be another major gap whose bridging was of the same order of improbability” (p. 140). But if we take Dawkins at his word, something interesting happens. If -as he suggests- each of those steps were equally unlikely (1/10^9), then the probability of overcoming all three would be 1/10^27. Given that there are 10^20 planets, that leaves only a one in ten million chance that there is any planet, anywhere in the universe that contains sentient life like us.

Let me be clear that I am not a biologist, nor am I claiming that the probability of spontaneous biogenesis is one in a billion or one in a trillion, or any other number (if any molecular biologists are reading this, I would be very interested to know your estimate; I’ve asked biologists that I know and there doesn’t seem to be a consensus). My point is that Dawkins does not provide any number at all because he is taking his argument the wrong way around. If you are trying to prove that P is large and find that P = p * N, the next logical thing to do is to estimate p and N using what we know about physical laws from astronomy and biochemistry (see p. 137). It is a specious argument to instead assert “since we know P is almost 1, we can estimate p.” Unfortunately, this is precisely what Dawkins does. On page 140, at the end of his argument about biology, he says “The anthropic principle states that, since we are alive, eucaryotic and conscious, our planet has to be one of the intensely rare planets that has bridged all three gaps”. But the anthropic principle (as Dawkins is using it) doesn’t exactly say that. It says that we have a certain number (10^18) of planets to work with. If the probability of conscious life evolving spontaneously is greater than 1/10^18, then whatever our theory of biogenesis is, it is a probable one. But conversely, it also says that if the probability is significantly less than 1/10^18, then our theory is very unlikely indeed. It simply does not say “since we’re here, we must be a very probable event” (the strong anthropic principle does make this argument, but Dawkins doesn’t invoke it, presumably because it undermines his argument that there is a probable, natural explanation for the universe). Dawkins has constructed an elaborate framework, but has left out the final step which is the very crux of his argument.

My central objection to Dawkins’ reasoning is essentially this: he has mistaken one of his postulates for a conclusion. What was his postulate? That there IS a natural, probable explanation for the origin of life. If this statement is accepted as a postulate then, and only then, does his reasoning make sense. If there is a natural, probable explanation for the origin of life, then we can assert (indeed, must assert), as Dawkins does, that “our planet has to be one of the intensely rare planets that has bridged all three gaps” (p. 141). However, if we are trying to determining WHETHER there is a natural, probable explanation for life, we certainly cannot use this reasoning. Well, why does Dawkins’ believe that there is a natural, probable explanation for life? I assert it is part of his faith in materialism. At this point, this statement might appear a bit excessive, but I believe that further justification emerges when we examine Dawkins’ next argument regarding the values of the fundamental physical constants.

Dawkins points out that there are six (although there may be as many as 26) fundamental physical constants, which, if any of them were altered very, very slightly from their current values, would prohibit the existence of a life-supporting universe (usually due to the collapse of the universe within a few attoseconds of the Big Bang). Of course, this presents a similar puzzle as the origins of complex biological life and, in a sense, is a precondition for it: if these constants hadn’t lined up and the universe had collapsed, complex life wouldn’t exist.

Let’s stop for a moment at this point. We have been trying thus far to determine whether or not there is a natural, probable explanation for the existence of complex life somewhere in the universe. Let us assume that Dawkins’ argument about biology is correct: natural selection provides a mechanism that explains how otherwise highly improbable-looking evidence (biological life) has a very probable explanation. Dawkins takes great pains to show that the beauty of Darwinian evolution is that it provides such an elegant mechanism, without which the existence of life would be highly suspect. But what if we did not have an elegant theory like natural selection which purported to account for the complexity that we observe? Would not the existence of a finely tuned, complex ecosystem then be highly suspect?

That is precisely the case we find ourselves in when it comes to the fundamental constants. To quote Dawkins in what is a bit of an understatement: “we don’t yet have an equivalent crane [i.e. mechanism] for physics” (p. 158). In other words, given our current understanding of the laws of physics, there is no objectively verified theory which explains the coincidence of the fundamental constants. If they were determined by pure chance, then the probability that the universe would have been able to sustain life is ridiculously small (Roger Penrose apparently estimated the probability to be 1 in 10^(10^123) ). I think it is at this point that Dawkins’ presuppositions become most apparent. For instance, as far as I’m aware there is not a single piece of experimental evidence for a multiverse (see the recent review of Susskind’s book in Nature: www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7069/full/438739a.html). In a preface to his treatment of multiverse theory in the Elegant Universe, Brian Greene states that “No one knows if these ideas are right or wrong, and certainly they currently lie on the outskirts of mainstream science” (p. 366). That is not surprising since the infinite universes postulated by multiverse theory are usually tucked away in black holes or in other dimensions where we can’t observe them. In the face of no concrete evidence and overwhelmingly negative odds, Dawkins states that “We should not give up hope of a better [mechanism] arising in physics” (p. 158). Perhaps we should not. But again, my objection is not about whether some alternate theory of physics exists that will explain life. My argument is that any belief that such a theory exists rests, as Dawkins says, on “hope” (p. 158), not on evidence.

A fundamental postulate of the materialist (I use the word descriptively, not pejoratively) worldview which Dawkins espouses is that: “everything in the universe can be feasibly explained by natural laws”, a statement to which I think Dawkins would readily assent. But is this assertion based on solely on empirical, objective evidence? There is an easy way to find out. Can everything in the universe currently be explained by natural laws, as we now understand them? In the case of physics, at least, the answer is a resounding no. The immediate objection is that we would be able to explain these phenomena if we had the right theory. But how do you know there is such a “right theory”? Such an assertion merely brings us back to the original postulate. The assertion that “at some point in the future, we WILL have a theory of that explains everything” is no more or less evidence-based than the assertion that “at some point in the future, we WILL live on the moon”. Both of these statements are plausible; they may even be true. But they certainly are based, at root, on faith: they are not in conflict with the evidence, but they display a trust which goes beyond the evidence.

Let me be clear that I am not disparaging Dawkins’ for having a worldview. I have one too. Everyone has one. You can’t do science or mathematics or anything unless you begin with a set of assumptions about the nature of reality. These assumptions may appear very reasonable and almost unavoidable, but it is important to recognize that they are assumptions, not conclusions. I also have deliberately avoided the question of God’s existence. I do happen to think that science gives us very clear reasons to question materialistic assumptions and to believe in the God who has revealed himself in the Bible. Historical evidence regarding the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ gives us even more. I also think that Dawkins’ philosophical arguments against God’s existence (for instance, his statement in Point 3 on page 158 that God is improbable because he is complex) are simply wrong. But for the purposes of this essay, I have limited myself to Dawkins’ scientific arguments in order to show that they are not as clear-cut as he claims and that scientific evidence does not necessarily lead us to materialism. Rather, we import materialism, or deism, or theism into our reasoning about evidence.

To restate my central objection, I believe that Dawkins is failing to distinguish between his assumptions and his conclusions. As a result, he is unable to see how much his worldview is coloring his interpretation of the evidence. When it comes to physics (and as a consequence to biology), the evidence we face is a set of fundamental constants which all conspire to permit the existence of life in a manner currently so improbable that it defies description. What is it that makes Dawkins so confident that such a coincidence has a natural explanation? What makes him sure that multiverse theory, or many worlds quantum theory, or a grand unification theory which so far have no objective justification will explain the universe? What makes him certain that, in the end, we will find a solution that does not involve a personal, omnipotent, creator? Faith. A belief that is not in conflict with the evidence, but which displays a trust that goes beyond the evidence. Dawkins, like all of us, possesses faith. As human beings, we cannot decide whether to have faith; we can only decide what or whom to put our faith in.

-Neil Shenvi

PZ Myers 1 – Catholic League 0

PZ Myers, the University of Minnesota biology teacher by day, author of the science blog “Pharyngula“, is at it again.

This time he is defending a Florida college student who is now receiving DEATH THREATS for taking a communion cracker out of the church, or, as the Catholic League called it, “a hate crime”.

Said, Myers, “It’s a frackin’ cracker! Crazy Christian fanatics right here in our own country have been threatening to kill a young man over a cracker. This is insane…. Can anyone out there score me some consecrated communion wafers? … I’ll show you sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare. I won’t be tempted to hold it hostage … but will instead treat it with profound disrespect and heinous cracker abuse, all photographed and presented here on the web.”

The Catholic League reacted swiftly, calling for PZ to be punished for his ruminations. “It is hard to think of anything more vile than to intentionally desecrate the Body of Christ,” Catholic League President Bill Donohue said in a news release. “We look to those who have oversight responsibility to act quickly and decisively.”

Ok. A harsh blog entry, and maybe PZ did some unnecessary ‘feather-ruffling’, but the man in Florida has received DEATH THREATS, and now PZ is receiving them too. This is scary stuff. Over what? A cracker. I don’t care what you believe. Killing people or threatening to kill people over crackers, cartoons or stuffed animals is insanity. And it’s an insanity that thrives when dogmatic beliefs are championed over reason.

PZ Myers has been a voice of reason on the topic of religious dogma, particularly on the topic of evolution, and his comments on this last bit of news should come as no surprise. I applaud PZ and hope that he remains outspoken on this subject and others.

After all, arguments from authority are unacceptable.

Frackin’ Cracker

CCD,

Ben