Most of my readers wonder why I go on so much about atheism. Most likely, you are one of them. Bear with me while I write my very last post on atheism. Then I am done.

Maybe you fit into one of the following categories?

1. I have never questioned the existence of God. Why would I?
2. There’s no proof that God exists, but there is no proof that God does not exist. The only rational position is don’t know.
3. Who cares? It makes no difference anyway.

I can’t answer #1. If you are happy with your beliefs then may your God bless you. The truth is important to me but I don’t feel any need to change your mind. I am always happy to discuss it with you though

To you, I quote Steven Weinberg from his essay, A Designer Universe:

One of the great achievements of science has been, if not to make it impossible for intelligent people to be religious, then at least to make it possible for them not to be religious.

---

The #2s moved me to post today. As far as I know, no one is claiming to have proof that there are no Gods. We need to get that straight because the discussion usually starts “XXXX has claimed to have 100% proof that God does not exist” where XXXX is a famous atheist like Richard Dawkins or an insignificant one like myself. As far as I can tell, Dawkins has never made that claim. I am fairly sure I haven’t either.

So, goes argument #2, if you have no proof, you must say “I don’t know”.

Every domain has it’s own standard of evidence. Some domains like mathematics or formal logic accept only 100% proof. The legal system makes do with beyond a reasonable doubt. Science is somewhere in between. No one has proven the laws of motion or gravity or thermodynamics or Archimedes’ Principle but - unless we discover something fundamentally new about the world - I will continue to believe that when a body is partially or totally submerged in a fluid, the upthrust on the body equals the weight of displaced fluid. You are welcome to your rationally sound “I don’t know”, just don’t design any ships for me.

I do believe in agnostics. There are plenty of people who have not really thought about it. You might be one of them but I am not. When you do get around to thinking about it , read Bertrand Russell’s Is there a God?

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

My position is Russell’s,

My conclusion is that there is no reason to believe any of the dogmas of traditional theology and, further, that there is no reason to wish that they were true. Man, in so far as he is not subject to natural forces, is free to work out his own destiny. The responsibility is his, and so is the opportunity.

---

But why, ask the #3s, should I care? Why is God’s non-existence any more important than Russell’s Celestial Teapot? For an unbeliever, you might say, you care an awful lot about something that does not exist.

I go on about it because, as Dawkins reminds us,

…unlike belief in Russell’s teapot, religion is powerful, influential, tax-exempt and systematically passed on to children too young to defend themselves. Children are not compelled to spend their formative years memorizing loony books about teapots. Government-subsidized schools don’t exclude children whose parents prefer the wrong shape of teapot. Teapot-believers don’t stone teapot-unbelievers, teapot-apostates, teapot-heretics and teapot-blasphemers to death. Mothers don’t warn their sons off marrying teapot-shiksas whose parents believe in three teapots rather than one. People who put the milk in first don’t kneecap those who put the tea in first.

Look. I don’t believe that atheists are a great persecuted minority. This is not the great civil-right struggle of the 21st century. I don’t mind that the Boy Scouts of America don’t accept people like me or my children - I think it’s silly, but I don’t expect them to change their policies for my sake. It bothers me a bit that stuff like this happens…but, if we keep our guard up, those people are not yet a threat to democracy.

What Dennett and Dawkins et al. are doing is a little consciousness-raising, that’s all. They (and I) want the #1s to know that there are actually quite a lot of us. They especially want the undeclared atheists - the atheists hiding in closets because they think they are alone in their disbelief. It’ll be easier once we are all wearing our Scarlet Letters.

I leave you with PZ Myers,

You don’t have to be 100% certain to be able to dismiss the rantings of bearded prophets as lacking grounds for concern. We usually develop an intellectual discriminatory filter that allows us to screen out the silly threats from the real ones; religion is a massive perforation in that sensible screen that encourages people to ignore evidence and accept Imaginary Improbabilities as Inarguable Inevitabilities. Rejecting it should be regarded as an important issue of self-defense.

That’s it. I am done.

Scott Adams has this trick that he calls philosotainment.

1. He announces that he is going to say something silly to wind people up
2. Then he says that something is self-evident and no reasonable people can argue with it
3. Then he says something vaguely plausible but wrong
4. If someone questions the silly,wrong point, he makes fun of them

It works every time. Even I am falling for it.
Here’s a sample from today

Step 1:

I don’t think he appreciates the philosotainment benefit of watching the Dilbert cartoonist whip people like him into a frenzy.

Step 2:

 First, I will make an argument on such a simple level no rational person could disagree. Then we will watch him disagree.

Step 3:

there is no meaningful difference between an agnostic who understands science and a weak atheist who understands science. Neither believes the case for God has been made, and both accept the peer reviewed science showing the fragility of the human mind for knowing “truth.”

Step 4:

The Angry Atheist jumped on this post like a hobo on a ham sandwich

Thus, he creates a nice paradox. Either accept Scott’s wrongness or argue with it and be an idiot. It’s a no-lose situation!

PZ Myers fell into his trap but it’s worth reading if only to read what is now my second favourite argument for God’s existence:

Argument from Imaginary Improbabilities

Paul Graham has too much stuff.

The worst stuff in this respect may be stuff you don’t use much because it’s too good. Nothing owns you like fragile stuff. For example, the “good china” so many households have, and whose defining quality is not so much that it’s fun to use, but that one must be especially careful not to break it.

Another way to resist acquiring stuff is to think of the overall cost of owning it. The purchase price is just the beginning. You’re going to have to think about that thing for years—perhaps for the rest of your life. Every thing you own takes energy away from you. Some give more than they take. Those are the only things worth having.

We in the Lawrence Household pride ourselves on how little stuff we accumulate. We buy about 10% of things that we think we want to buy but still we buy about 50% too much.

Less stuff. It’s what’s good for you.

Gordon Brown was over here last week. I have been eager to see what identity he would carve out for himself. Sounds like he is off to a good start…

Put simply, Brown sees the struggle against radical Islamism entirely differently from Bush, and therefore Blair. While their focus was on rogue regimes that posed a threat to the west, and the use of force to remove them, Brown sees a battle for the hearts and minds of the Muslim world. While the favoured comparison of the Bush-Blair era was the second world war against Hitler and fascism, Brown looks to the cold war with Soviet communism.

The Dems tried (and failed) to frame the battle against Osama and his buddies as a police action rather than a struggle of Good vs Evil. Brown is framing it the same way:

 But while the president said the west confronted “an ideology of darkness”, Brown declared that “terrorism is not a cause; it is a crime”. That immediately denies the terrorist the dignity of an enemy and casts him instead as a mere criminal, to be hunted down chiefly by policework and intelligence.

and

Perhaps more importantly, Brown wants the west to regain the moral high ground he believes is essential to victory in any ideological struggle. He’s long been an advocate on Aids, poverty and debt. But now there’s an added urgency. If the west is seen to be acting justly, then it will be that much harder for Osama bin Laden to rail against wicked western imperialism.

Quotes from The Guardian.

Every now again I get some spam that’s actually interesting to read. I thought I’d share it.

So here’s Heather Locklear on the beach playing football, flirting, and generally acting young. And while her body is still in great shape, the signs of ageing are starting to show. Most notably in her face, where it seems she skipped her last Botox appointment (or maybe her face-lift could use a little tightening).

Sadly, she’s also showing signs of getting older in her arms and legs, where she’s starting to get a bit of that “old lady waddle.” In fact, the only place it looks as though she hasn’t aged is around her boobs, which are still remarkably perky (though the reason for that is probably an easy guess.)

I enjoyed this one because, when I was 14, my friend Alex was totally in love with Heather Locklear. He probably still is. (Alex, are you out there?)

It makes such a pleasant change from the usual

Hey, man! Great post! Buy Tramadol…

that it made me wonder about the future of comment spam.

Maybe, one day, the spammers will hire professional writers to craft entertaining spam. There may be annual awards for Best Comedy Spam and Best Spam series. Bloggers will compete to have the top spammers leave comments on their site. Hey! It might happen!

Here’s a more likely prediction: most bloggers set their moderation policy to approve first comment only. It won’t be long until armies of professional commenters will be hired by the spammers to leave real comments, thus opening the door for the spambots to spew their filth. And then we’ll need a new policy.