A Dangerous Delusion

Last night, the University of Bristol hosted a debate based on the following motion: Is God a dangerous delusion? Debating for the motion was Susan Blackmore, and against was Alastair McGrath. Each had 20 minutes for their proposition, and 7 minutes to rebut.

I found the actual content of the debate quite disappointing. Neither of the two seemed to answer the question very well. Blackmore, who actually had green hair!, spent the first 4-5 minutes stating that God was dangerous, but not the God of the philosophers. Spouting 'cruelty' and 'war', etc., she barely explained what she was so upset about. She then briefly mentioned Sam Harris' critique that any amount of blind faith can generally erode the veracity of reason within a given society. She hardly mentioned it before moving on.

But the bulk of her 'critique' of religion was spent on explaining the origins thereof. She put forth her assertion of memes, and asserted that since religion was natural, then therefore not true. Obviously this critique fails- regardless of how religion develops, it could still be true. Indeed, this is why religion has (almost) nothing to do with science- it simply isn't falsifiable. Further, and as she mentioned, the religions that we have are the ends of the branches, more developed that the previous models. Religion, according to her, holds sway simply because it has latched onto a few good ideas. Or trickery. Either or.

Her last point is hard to swallow. The assertion of memes surely does not follow genes 1:1, but a comparison should be applicable. We don't assume that the result of evolution is only something that 'looks' useful to the species, but something that IS useful. As well, introducing memes into religion, in the way she did, implies a certain value in religion. Once that is granted, it can just as easily be argued that the 'newer' religions have validity.

McGrath was only slightly better. He broke the question into two parts. The first being whether God is a delusion. He claimed he had evidence for religion, but never provided it. At least he pointed out that the evidence necessary wasn't on the same level as science or maths. He countered that democracy is not demonstrably a better system (although, I would argue that it is) but that, nonetheless, we would all agree that it is. There are so many things that we take for granted, and are not able to sufficiently explain, but nonetheless, take for granted. To make his point fuller- as JSM observes, any telos cannot be proven.

Nonetheless, McGrath offered no proof whatsoever. He simply suggested that his belief in God, or specifically Jesus, makes science, and existence, all the more real for him. This notion seems dubious, but nice for him if it does. I've heard theist argue this before, but it doesn't seem to actually make sense. They claim that beauty can only be explained by the existence of God- surely we perceive it as more than just atoms and neural reactions.

That point is irrelevant though. No matter what the source, that does not (necessarily) create an objective concept of 'beauty.' Beauty may be an objective form, such as within Plato's extreme realist philosophy. Even barring that though, we can still accept a strong form of beauty- we can't genes make beauty the same way that God would?

McGrath then actually got to the point- it is not religion, per se, but any ideology, that is dangerous. And, more specifically, it is the fringes of any ideology that seems to brood violence. Countering the claim that theist convince themselves of God because they already want to believe, he claim that atheist are the same (if not worse) Atheism was the natural extension of the Enlightenment's view of the autonomous man.

Looking back, perhaps they said more than I though they did. But most of what the did say seemed 'old hat' to me. I guess I've been through these arguments for too long. Likewise, many people find Dawkins' arguments profoundly revealing- I find them to be nothing more than the recycling of old arguments.

Nonetheless, I think McGrath won. But only because he bothered answering the question a bit more than Blackmore did.

But, to my money, the actual contents of the debate were the most intriguing part of the night. The attitudes of the debaters, as well as the audience, seemed to exhibit certain particular patterns. As should have been expected- people tended to think that those they already agreed with, had won the debate. Further, they felt that the opposing side was rude to their favored side. In other words, the theists thought that Blackmore was just insulting to their beliefs (though she was trying to be a bit) and the atheists (or those more skeptical of religious belief) thought that McGrath was giving unsatisfactory answers. It was interesting how partisan the interpretations were.

But that was hardly the most interesting aspect of the debate. Much more interesting was the demeanor of the debaters. Blackmore was fairly condescending towards other people's opinions- she considered herself the bastion of rationality. McGrath, on the other hand, was patronizing. But he was more than that. He seemed almost to go out of his way to be nice- so that if his arguments did not suffice, he would gain the psychological advantage by his disposition.

More shocking, and also more obvious, was the terms in which the debate were framed. Although it was supposed to be a debate about theism, supposedly in general, it was actually a debate about Christianity. As I am wont to say: the God that atheists of this country deny is Jesus. Islam was denigrated to a degree greater than Christianity, and religions other than Christianity were taken to be obviously false- without any need for proof. The supposed superiority of Christianity was so obvious to the audience, that a questioner objected to grouping Christianity into the debate at all. As if Christianity has never been the source for conflict in this world. Never mind the Crusades, the Inquisitions, the 100 Year War. Nope, perfect religion. And demonstrably so.

It's All Propaganda

I pretty much insinuated here that all statements, factual or no, are propaganda. A simple question should help make this more obvious: What is the difference between what you learned when you were little and the information you hear now? The simple answer is that we are trained, or are hardwired in the first place, to learn that way. That is why propaganda is so effective: in method it is no different than learning that permeates your entire life. In fact, it's much easier to accept propaganda than it is what you learn when you are young. Propaganda builds off a system of connections that we have already made, whereas learning is a struggle for many.

This is all especially true if you buy into the Humean theory that causal connections, and the like, are made up. We process information based on how it fits into our previous framework, and are in fact hardwired to create new frameworks.

However, propaganda is not foolproof. There are two obvious guards that we have against it: our reason and our senses. Our reason can tell us when something does not fit. As well, when claimed item do not correspond to our sense data we may reject them. However, neither check is fully effective: There was a study where people were placed in a classroom and two line were drawn on the board, one clearly shorter than the other. Most students were told to say that the shorter one was longer. When the test subjects were asked which was in fact longer, over 60% agreed with the liars. Obviously, peer pressure is a significant factor in that figure. But, when the whole world thinks you are wrong, it can be quite powerful psychologically.

I will post soon on why I post, if everything is propaganda.

Vacuous Egoism

I've posted before about why I am an egoist. But, as I noted, one can be an egoist and still believe in helping others. In fact, so do I. Then isn't that simply vacuous egoism? I don't think it is. Strong, Randian egoism comes from the premise that the only actual person relevant to any discussion is the individual. Rand denied that there was anything such as humanity, in a rather Humian fashion. And yes, I like the play on words there. She claimed that humanity is nothing more than the aggregate of all its parts- humans. Any other notion, claimed Rand, denied the individual his due autonomy, and would be nothing more than collectivist fascism.

This is precisely where I would disagree. I haven't worked out all the details in my head yet, but it's clear to me that individuals are also parts of communities. Besides the oft quote Aristotelain maxim that man is a social being, society in crucial in man's upbringing. Without society, man simply would not develop in the same way- and not in a positive way at all. There have been cases where children have been kept in complete isolation, and upon entry into society, simply could not learn to talk. No matter how long.

That said, what is it that society makes? I agree here with Rand that it, first and foremost, makes an individual. It is quite the paradox that individual cognition can only be achieve through communal help, but it seems to be the case nonetheless. But, people's bonds of association run deeply. Rand was wont to explain love as a capitalist transaction, whereby one loved someone only as a result of achieving value in them.

This seems false- I love my parents, but that love does not consist in the value I see in them, for often I don't see such value. Now, that love was probably caused by the situation I was raised in, in other words, the facts that they care for me and showed me love as well. Even though this was the cause of the love, it is not the content of that love. Likewise, it is not restricted by that cause. Even were my parents to be so despicable that I hated them, and their evil actions far outweighed whatever good they gave to me, I would still love them nonetheless. Why? Because that love so formed it part of my self-conception of personhood.


In other words, and more simply, I see myself as part of my family. But, not only that, it is a perception that is almost impossible to escape. It would require specific deliberation and action, and even then, there is not guarantee that it would work. So, I see myself, in addition to being an individual, as part of my family, as part of two nations (America, and the Jewish people), and as part of humanity in general.

Now, I still haven't completely reconciled these two ideas. I don't know that reconciliation is possible, maybe they are simply two conflicting strains of perception. My inquiry runs parallel to the very same inquiry I have in Judaism. Hopefully I will address that in a future post- and the answer there may help me here.

Your mom's not a community of saints

Here is where I declare to you: I'm a little egoist short and stout, I like bettering myself, so don't you pout. Don't you just love teapots?

But, seriously- what is an egoist, and why am I one?

Simply put- an egoist is just some who believes in pursuing his own interests. Now, this may sound callous, and this may sound cruel, but it really isn't. Why? Try the opposite on for size-altruism-and see what you get: a wasted life. But, you will argue, 'I want to help people, so how is that wasting my life?' It isn't. And you want to know why? Because it's what you consider to be a good use of your life. And so do I. But, I'm still keen on improving Bertram qua Bertram.

And guess what else? Every single one of you who are reading this is an egoist (Every third person who is not reading this blog is a Martian, and they are known to be altruists.) Doesn't that suck? Wouldn't life be so much better if we just did everything for everbody else and didn't care about ourselves?

I doubt it, and seriously. People think that wanting to pursue your own goals is selfishness. I think its what makes the world go round. The Talmud calls it the Yetzer HaRa (the evil inclination) and declares that no one would build house, marry women, chicken wouldn't lat eggs, and the world would generally suck if the were not self-interested. It's called progress, and it comes with all of our stamps of appoval.

Having goals and pursuing them isn't shameful- it's admirable. It's not the only thing in this world., but it is a major chunk of it.

For those who don't get the title, its a reference to John Rawls's essay 'Justice as Fairness' where he fantasizes about altruistic men, and a community of saints. But, neither you, nor your mom, is a community of saints.