Pictures

Penn Jillette from Penn & Teller is one of the most visible atheists in popular culture. He does an excellent job injecting a bit of skepticism into our daily lives via their TV show. He has also contributed a very good Essay in the NPR "This I Believe" Series. I've put his picture on the sidebar as the first of what I hope will be many famous free-thinkers, a designation that is not so trivial given that the overwhelming percentage of the world population claims belief in a deity of some sort.

The Necessity of Atheism

Like all great poets, Percy Bysshe Shelley had a knack for expressing a lot of information in a few words:

"If he is infinitely good, what reason should we have to fear him? If he is infinitely wise, why should we have doubts concerning our future? If he knows all, why warn him of our needs and fatigue him with our prayers? If he is everywhere, why erect temples to him? If he is just, why fear that he will punish the creatures that he has filled with weaknesses? If grace does everything for them, what reason would he have for recompensing them? If he is all-powerful, how offend him, how resist him? If he is reasonable, how can he be angry at the blind, to whom he has given the liberty of being unreasonable? If he is immovable, by what right do we pretend to make him change his decrees? If he is inconceivable, why occupy ourselves with him? IF HE HAS SPOKEN, WHY IS THE UNIVERSE NOT CONVINCED? If the knowledge of a God is the most necessary, why is it not the most evident and the clearest?"

-From The Necessity of Atheism by Percy Bysshe Shelley

I think, if I may presume to give an answer, that the reason religion is filled with all these contradictions between the doctrine of a deity's omnipotence and omnipresence with its actual practices is that we humans have a irrepressible need to anthropomorphize. Witness our tendency to portray animals as human-like characters in stories and our eagerness to assign human traits to our favorite pets. From an evolutionary standpoint, it makes complete sense that the humans that are most likely to survive are the ones who can identify other humans as rational beings like themselves and act accordingly. This "social consciousness," which includes actions like praising, bargaining with, and asking favors or forgiveness from others is a vital part of human interaction. Since we don't have any other template to use, we just adapt our existing models. Therefore, God is our "father" or our "king," and we are supposed to act accordingly, even though most of what we do really doesn't make sense if we are working under the assumption that this is deity who is all-knowing and all-powerful. Once again, I think this is an example of where an empirical explanation of religion ("it makes sense when you consider the evolution of human intelligence") is much more compelling than that offered by a theologian (eg "God is real and wants to have a 'relationship' with us so he acts like he is not omnipotent even though he is" or "the mysteries of God are beyond human comprehension" etc)

Magical Thinking

The New York Times had a excellent article in the Science Times section on what it calls "magical thinking." It points out that, rather than being a aberration, the belief in the ability to change reality through counterfactual methods like wearing lucky socks or performing certain pregame rituals is widespread, even among people who "know better" and admit that it has no logical basis. It would seem that the ability to detect complicated cause-and-effect relationships, especially when the mechanism is unknown, is so adaptive from an evolutionary standpoint that it outweighs the possible cost associated with mistaken beliefs. For example, the impulse to stick with a successful hunting technique or tool, even if one cannot rationally explain why it works, is extremely beneficial even if the same impulse also leads one utter a magical incantation as well. The potential upside (continued success) is much greater than the potential downside (spending a few seconds performing a ritual of questionable value).

About Me

I decided that before I jumped into some of the more substantial posts about my thoughts on religion, I would give a little bit of information about my background. I am a graduate student in physics at a major University in the Midwest. I come from a Jewish family that started out moderately religious, and is now Orthodox. Consequently, growing up I was a firm believer in God and received a rather extensive religious education, which I feel is extremely helpful in understanding why people are drawn to belief, and also where it can be shown to be logically flawed. Some of the smartest people I know are able to apply fantastic intellectual feats in a effort to understand Talmudic intricacies, and yet also believe that the Earth is less than 6,000 years old. I have been able to see that religion is not simple mental laziness, which means that although it may seem easy for atheists and agnostics criticize religion, without having experienced it firsthand, or understanding exactly what people believe and why, it is often difficult to do so effectively. Some of the most compelling reasons to be skeptical of western religion come from the Bible itself. That is why the ability to quote chapter and verse is as useful, if not more, to the atheist than it is to to the believer.

Religion as Natural Phemonenon

I think that religion is a mystery to most people. Many atheists wonder how intelligent people can believe such inherently counterfactual ideas. Similarly, believers have to explain why anyone would adhere to any other (i.e. mistaken) religion. Empiricists, on the other hand, who look first for naturalistic explanations for all phenomena, realize that the error was thinking that religion was an exception to this rule. For a long time, materialistic explanations of religion were hard to come by. However, with advances in many diverse fields such as evolutionary psychology and brain imaging, a conception of religion as a natural human behavior has now taken shape. An excellent book that describes this materialistic theory of religion is "Religion Explained" by Pascal Boyer. This book is very accessible even to people without a background in psychology. Another good book on this subject, but considerably more dense, is "In Gods We Trust" by Scott Atran. In future posts, I hope to talk about these ideas more fully, but the fundamental idea is that religion is a natural consequence of the evolution of human intelligence, most notably the development of agency-detection and social interaction faculties. Simply put, our ancestors evolved mental templates that made supernatural agents like gods and spirits plausible.
Unfortunately, this formulation of religion has yet to be adopted by some very influential atheists. Richard Dawkins is a fantastic writer and has done more than anyone in bringing a more complete understanding of evolution to the masses. However, Dawkins sees religion as a unmitigated disaster that stems from simple human irrationality passed down from parent to child in the form of a "mind virus" which will eventually be eradicated as we advance our scientific thinking. Similarly, blogger Sam Harris has written a post with the unambiguous title "Science Must Destroy Religion." I feel that this totally misses the reason that religion exists at all. The position that religion is totally destructive or that it is even possible that it could be eliminated so easily is not supported by the facts. Progressive RJ Eskrow writes that it cannot be definitely concluded that organized religion is a negative force, on balance. In fact, religion has done many positive things, mostly acting as a framework to organize our inherent morality, as I hope to explain later. However, when it comes to describing the world we live in, religion makes a manifold of unsubstantiated claims.
The solution is that atheists need to do a better job of acknowledging the source of religion and what it has done right. At the same time, we have to show how evidence-based thinking works better and demonstrate that human morality is possible without resorting to the supernatural. Religion may be natural, but that doesn't make it inevitable.

Lies we tell our children

It seems to me that there is something profoundly wrong about the lead-up to Christmas. Every year, starting weeks or even months before the big day, millions of parents across the globe perpetrate a great falsehood on their impressionable children, leading them to believe in the existence of a certain man with supernatural powers. The youngsters are told that they should be good, for goodness sake, since this mysterious man, the ultimate arbiter of who is naughty and who is nice, is constantly watching and can be relied upon to bestow gifts on those deemed worthy and withhold them from the unfortunate remainder. This lie has major advantages as far as the parents are concerned, not least of which being that while their offspring know mommy and daddy aren’t omniscient, good behavior is still assured because little Billy and Suzy are under the impression that there is someone out there scrutinizing their every move. This ability to detect even the most covert act of naughtiness cannot be in doubt, since the kids are told that the big guy knows when each of them is sleeping, or conversely, when he or she happens to be awake. Indeed, the normal limitation of physics don’t seem to apply to him at all, or at least, they don’t hinder his ability to judge and distribute each person’s just reward. The giant deceit is supported by elaborate subterfuge that even includes specially decorated areas, complete with actors, where the children are told that their requests will be heard. Although the truth may be revealed later in life, children are induced to adhere to a model of approved action in anticipation of this fictional Christmas Eve arrival.

If you, gentle reader, protest that Santa Claus is a harmless ruse and, indeed, one of the most beloved elements of childhood, I would respond that I wish it was jolly old St. Nick that I was referring to. In fact, I’ve been describing another significant Christmas figure, someone who, impressionable youths are told, will judge mankind and mete out rewards and punishments as he deems fit. At least Santa’s good opinion only means the difference between the latest gaming system and a lump of coal, not whether you will spend all eternity in unfathomable pleasure or torment. After all, the man in the red suit is only tempting you into being good with playthings, not everlasting salvation.

Inaugural Post

In this first post, I hope to outline the purpose of this blog and give some kind of idea about what can be expected in future posts. My primary reason for writing this is to collect and organize my thoughts about why I have chosen an empirical epistemology as my worldview. In other words, I will attempt to advocate for a more rational approach in deciding what is true and what is false, one based on the scientific method of experience and experiment, and not, for example, on revelation, received knowledge, or superstition. This is not to say that supernatural explanations have been excluded a priori, but rather it will be clear (hopefully) that materialist explanations have invariably been shown to be superior. Many of the posts on this blog will be essays about why I think religion, pseudoscience, and superstition are wrong. Although I don't try to offend my readers' sensibilities, I understand that some people may be scandalized. My humble request is that, whether you agree with me or not, you keep an open mind. As you will find, I have a strong aversion to ad hominem arguments, and I firmly believe in the value of evaluating issues on their merits. My goal is that people (including and especially me), will think critically about what he or she believes and why. Periodically, I might also feel the urge to throw some political opinion into the mix, but, ironically, these will probably be the least controversial posts.

In conclusion, I want to show that the real world is fascinating and awe-inspiring enough on it own. We don't need to embellish it by inventing deities, spirits or other superstitions. While all these may be natural human reactions to an unknown and frightening world (as I hope to explain later), I feel that it is in our capability as rational beings to do a better job about deciding what to accept as true. Above all, we should never lose our sense of wonder about the Universe we find ourselves in. This is the best we can hope for during our short time on this planet.