Sam Harris, the FSM, and that notorious teapot

[ajva]

Feeling a bit under the weather today, so decided on a QNI (sorry webcowgirl - hope you're having a blast!).

I've been amusing myself watching videos online, including some of my music and sporting faves. But I also came across this fascinating video of Sam Harris speaking at the AAI conference earlier this year. I thought some of you might find it interesting; I think it might have quite broad appeal, even perhaps to some of the people of faith on my friends list who may be interested in current trends in the debate. Obviously it is at the occasion of a - how shall we say - "atheistnormative" meeting, and so if you're thinking about clicking through you should of course bear that in mind, but you may find it quite engaging nevertheless. He expresses some very interesting ideas about the usefulness or otherwise of the term "atheist", his thoughts on how atheists are too even-handed in their treatments of different religions, and finishes with a very interesting section on the reported experiences of mystics and contemplatives down the ages, and how he thinks atheists can often dismiss these too readily for their own good.

The other section of this post is under a cut tag, because I am going to be freely atheist in it. I am not going to be rude about theists, and I promise no swearing or other brusque language :o) . However, I will be presenting an argument from a convinced atheists's perspective as to why Russell's Teapot and the Flying Spaghetti Monster are doomed to be ineffective as debating tools, and some of what I write may appear quite dismissive (perhaps even arrogantly so, although I hope not) to theist eyes. My technique will be to present a hypothetical interview by me now of my younger theist self.



Still here? OK, don't say you weren't warned. :o)

I have often found, since I came to the point where I became an atheist, that my youthful background as an evangelical Christian has been very useful in understanding where theists are coming from. Let me make clear that I do not for a minute believe that the insights thus gained are unavailable to people who have never been believers - we are all human beings and, if you have a facility for empathy and a little imagination, such insights can also be yours. I simply find that I have a useful, psychological short cut. I find it useful to think about how I, as a 16-year-old theist, might have met some of the 33-year-old me's anti-theist arguments.

To illustrate this, let me present a little hypothetical question-and-answer session: me now, putting arguments to my younger self.

Anne Now: I propose that religion is entirely human-made, and is an artefact of humanity and the way it has evolved, rather than describing something that exists outside of it. Let's start with this, then: how do you explain the sheer variety of human religions?

Anne Then: Well, each society understands God in its own way. Certainly any monotheistic religion is fundamentally the same, since all believe in a single God. The differences between each are merely the result of cultural developments in different areas of the world. I would also argue that the same is true of the polytheistic religions, the vast majority of which have a God at the top of a hierarchy of devine personae. But such a leader figure is not necessary: any service to God, via whatever cultural filter, will be received by God as to Him. I expect he's pretty understanding of imperfections in our interpretations. He is a loving and very understanding Chap. :o)

Anne Now: But if you ask a hundred different Christians what they think God wants, you will get a huge number of different answers. If you ask a million different theists of different faiths, even more. A liberal theist tends to believe in a liberal God, a conservative theist a conservative God, and a fundamentalist in a fundamentalist, bloodthirsty God. All believe they are right. I think this simply constitutes a reflection of the personalities of the different believers and implies no external Being. This diversity is not problematic within my philosophy, but it is very much so within yours. How can you be sure that *you* know what he wants?

Anne Then: Well, I don't. It would be arrogant to say otherwise. But I know that I have a very personal relationship with Him, and I can only hope that what I am taking out of that is vaguely congruent to His will. But you're right - there's no way I can know. I concede that.

Anne Now: I suppose it's true that there are many areas where it doesn't really matter. But I think I may be posing a slightly trickier question here_

Anne Then (laughs): Oh dear...

Anne Now (laughs): Indeed, sorry...

Anne Then: Ha! That's OK. Go on...?

Anne Now: OK a slightly trickier question, then: what about when basic doctrines are simply mutually exclusive? Let me give you an example. I don't want to put words into your mouth, so please correct me if I'm wrong. In fact - why don't you tell me yourself? What do you believe will happen when you die? Some kind of afterlife?

Anne Then: Oh I see! Oh yes, I believe in an afterlife.

Anne Now: Eternal life in Heaven.

Anne Then: Yes. I don't know exactly how it will work, but yes.

Anne Now: What about reincarnation?

Anne Then: I don't believe in that, no.

Anne Now: Phew! I can ask my question then.

Anne Then (laughs): OK, glad to be of help. Go on then.

Anne Now: Some religions have reincarnation as a staple belief. Are they wrong?

Anne Then: I'd have to say yes to that.

Anne Now: But how can you be sure? What makes you so sure that your way is the right way? It's fair enough to say everyone can be vaguely right when it comes to things that easily overlap, but those two ideas plain disagree.

Anne Then: Yes, that's true, they do. But I do believe in an eternal afterlife rather than reincarnation, so you can't expect me to say differently.

Anne Now: So you think it's possible for cultural development following the revelation of God's word to stray so far that it leads to quite serious untruths that - say - mug Hindus are doomed to believing?

Anne Then: I suppose that's true. But I don't believe that it's possible for human beings to know what God's plan is, by and large, so I don't know why that might be. I don't think that a belief in reincarnation will exclude Hindus from Heaven. Or the reverse, if I'm wrong. Whatever happens, happens.

Anne Now: Isn't that a cop-out? And isn't my view simpler? That human beings evolved a tendency to seek meaning and believe in things even if they're not there? That would easily explain why religions vary so much from culture to culture, and why they have doctrines that are mutually exclusive in parts. And why so many people even within the same religion can believe very very different things. Your way has to fall back on you not possibly being expected to know the answer to what seems like an impossible quandary. In fact, let's take my thesis that human beings have a tendency to believe in things that might not be there. What would we expect that to look like? Well, we *might* expect people to say things like "I don't know what's there, but I know there must be *something*", or indeed "I know God is there because I can *feel* him beside me". Isn't that simply an expression of what I'm talking about?

Anne Then: It's possible, but how can you be sure you're right?

Anne Now: Let's take another tack. Why don't dogs go to church? Why don't sparrows stop mid-flight five times a day and reorientate themselves towards Mecca? Dolphins are intelligent: why don't they sing dolphin hymns?

Anne Then: Ha! How do you know they don't? But I take your point. I just think human beings are lucky enough to be able to have some understanding of the devine. I just think myself lucky to be able to do that.

Anne Now: Isn't it more likely that it's because there is no God, and that religions of all kinds are simply an artefact of how our species has evolved?

Anne Then: Theoretically your idea is attractive, but in practice my own personal experience of God makes me think that it is unlikely to be true. Let me ask you a question: you cannot disprove the existence of God, I think we'd both agree, so how can you be so sure you're right?

Anne Now: Well, you cannot disprove the existence of the Celestial Teapot or the Flying Spaghetti Monster; it doesn't mean they exist.

Anne Then: Oh come on. Those notions are quite clearly human inventions. A teapot is clearly made by people for people. Spaghetti, whatever its wheaty roots, is quite clearly shaped by people for human consumption. And crucially, they are both physical objects, though hypothetical - and God is very much not. I cannot prove the existence of God, and you cannot disprove it. That makes us even.

Anne Now: Hmmm. No, I respectfully suggest it doesn't. Probability doesn't have to split 50/50. I suggest you take up university-level maths one day...

FIN


OK, a trite treatment, perhaps, but you get my point. There are two problems:

1) Teapots and spaghetti monsters are quite clearly invented by human beings, and so the rhetorical use to which they are put will only ever be accepted by people who already believe that religion is invented by human beings too viz. atheists. People who do not believe that religion is human-made will find the comparison facile, and non-analogous.

2) And though hypothetical, they are also theoretically material constructs, and the vast majority of theists see God as being non-material. Although philosophically and logically this is irrelevant, it will not seem that way to most theists.

And therefore I submit to the jury that Russell's Teapot, along with the Flying Spaghetti Monster, are doomed to be forever useless in debate with theists. The prosecution rests.

:o)

Comments

[seph-hazard.livejournal.com]

I am drunk, and therefore cannot say anything vaguely intelligent. However - thank you for posting this, as it is terrifyingly similar to the dialogue that happens in my head. I shall endeavour to come back to it tomorrow when I am capable of rational thought. (And also on a keyboard that doesn't have all the letters rubbed off - I find flickgc's very hard to type on!)

[webcowgirl.livejournal.com]

How funny, I swear ciphergoth and two other folks debated religion here tonight for well over an hour. Sorry you couldn't have joined in!

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

alextiefling and friend_of_tofu!

LJ whiteout

[webcowgirl.livejournal.com]

I couldn't remember A's LJ handle to save my life last night! But what I meant was Mr. ellbie (who's LJ handle is also escaping me).

[jhg.livejournal.com]

Not all that much of a coincidence really...

[friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com]

Well yes, odds were not exactly long.

William Hill would not be taking bets.

(I would hazard a guess that we spend at least 30% of our total conversation time discussing religion/theology/magic/the nature of the universe/etc, so it's bound to come up in company from time to time.)

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

I disagree with Harris about atheism - the discussion on the Richard Dawkins site is actually not bad. PZ of Pharyngula had some good replies too.

I agree with your misgivings about teapot/FSM/IPU. The discussion leading up to it is fascinating - thanks for the insights. Re your discussion of an afterlife - a rhetorical device I've found useful in discussion with seph_hazard of a time machine, or perhaps a "timescope", which allows you to go back and look at incidents in the past. You can for example check if the birth was really virgin, or if Mohammed really departs this earth on a winged horse.

[seph-hazard.livejournal.com]

In retrospect I think I was being too liberal during that discussion. If I had a time machine then I would be able to go back and see the Nativity or the Crucifiction. Not, however, the monkeys. [grin]

[seph-hazard.livejournal.com]

Or possibly even the Crucifixtion. Or something. Damn flickgc and her gin and her amusingly blank keyboard.

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

Clearly you want one of these :-)

[friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com]

I'm keen to get another Anglo-Catholic perspective on this: what do you think of the view, as frequently put to me by alextiefling, that the Passion & the Crucifixion constituted a fundamentally space/time-altering one-off event, which changed the universe both before AND after?

If true, I guess that would mean that even if you could go back in time and observe Jesus on the Cross, you would not be able to observe events before his death as he himself did, because the past would already have been changed. Maybe, as a non-Anglican, I haven't really understood either the theology or the physics of it properly.

[alextiefling.livejournal.com]

That's not quite what I meant. I don't mean that the historical, material facts changed retrospectively like something from Back to the Future II. What I mean is that the world (in a metaphysical sense) has a potential 'fallen' state, and that the presence of Jesus in the world, and especially at Golgotha, eternally lifts the world into a higher, 'saved' state. (Yes, this makes me a universalist.)

This is intended as, among other things, an answer to the objection 'What about (the salvation of) people born before Jesus, or who never heard of him?'.

[ajva.livejournal.com]

the Crucifiction

Whoops! LOL! :oD

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

That's good, because if you hadn't I would have had to ask about Xenu next!

[jhg.livejournal.com]

...except that (sadly) time travel is philosophically untenable in more than one way...

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure a timescope suffers the same problems, does it?

[ajva.livejournal.com]

Yes, I disagree with much of it too - I simply found his address pleasantly interesting.

Glad you enjoyed my little dialogue. Interestingly, I was only aiming for conlusion 1 at the start. Conclusion 2 didn't even occur to me until I started thinking like my 16-year-old self. I must have been really getting into it. :o)

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

About Harris and atheism:

http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=25667
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/10/letter_to_a_nonatheist_new_ath.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/10/sam_harris_seems_like_a_nice_f.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/10/cult_is_the_new_fundamentalist.php

Dialogue between the anti-priest and the dying Anne (I know, I'm evil...)

[friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com]

Thanks for posting this. I'd really like to watch the video at some point, and I found the dialogue very interesting. I think it might actually be a very useful way for thinking about having a conversation with a 16 year old evangelical Christian on the subject.

I'm not totally sold on describing myself as a theist, for a variety of reasons (not least, the fact that my understandings of deities are probably quite a long way away from yours, and from many other people's, both believers and non-believers), but I'll go with it for the specifics of this discussion. Thing is, as a "theist", I agree very very strongly with several things you posited above;

"I propose that religion is entirely human-made, and is an artefact of humanity and the way it has evolved, rather than describing something that exists outside of it."

Hell yes. Anyone claiming that religions have *not* evolved with humans is frankly crazy or wilfully ignorant about history or even about present-day discussions within various religions on how to deal with modern phenomena for which there is no historical precedent - not just women priests, video games and iPods spring to mind! Even those people who do believe that their faith was handed down entire in one act of communion with the divine (and there really can't be that many people who could hold such an extreme view, not least because what they will have been told about the development of their religion flies in its face) would generally still have to admit that the religion itself will alter the way it does things to encompass and cope with the ways in which the world changes, they would just take the view that these changes are commensurate with the spirit of the thing (I generalise wildly about these imaginary people to make my point here, I admit!).

"But if you ask a hundred different Christians what they think God wants, you will get a huge number of different answers. If you ask a million different theists of different faiths, even more. A liberal theist tends to believe in a liberal God, a conservative theist a conservative God, and a fundamentalist in a fundamentalist, bloodthirsty God. All believe they are right. I think this simply constitutes a reflection of the personalities of the different believers and implies no external Being."

Again, big old yes. Of course people see their deities as they see themselves - I believe firmly that one chooses one's faith based on one's existing morality and politics, not the other way round. And again, I think it'd be odd to argue that the *complete* opposite of this was true, in the face of clear evidence to the contrary (a partial argument, which admits to some influence but also to some underlying absolute, is probably more reasonable - I'd have to take my views on such an argument as I came to it).

I love the FSM, by the way. It entertains the hell out of me, and I think it is a lovely tool for debating with ridiculously close-minded individuals. My latterly-atheist mother (she described herself as an agnostic all through my childhood, which boggled me because she is *totally* an atheist - she seems happier to use the term now) also really likes the FSM and has asked me to lend her the book. It may just have something to do with the pirates, mind you ;¬)

Re: Dialogue between the anti-priest and the dying Anne (I know, I'm evil...)

[friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com]

Oh, and further on the subject of the FSM as above - I wasn't going to enter into a debate on this, just give some feedback on your writing really, but the teapot/FSM point did provoke a thought in my head, which is this: many religions throughout history have specifically used man-made objects as a repository for the divine. For example, the Sumerian city gods all had a painted wooden sacred statue of the god, in which it was believed that the deity resided (although not necessarily fully - perhaps the best approximation is the idea that some of the "spirit" of the deity inhabited the statue). Nobody ever claimed those statues weren't made by humans - being the temple carver was a pretty prestigious job - but the statues were generally treated as a proxy for the god, for example going on ritual journeys (Inanna's journey from Uruk is probably the best-documented) to other cities and communing with other gods and with important human figures such as kings - sort of human/divine summit meetings! This is not an isolated example - if you read around the theological debates associated with iconoclasm and iconophilia between *roughly* the 8th and 13th centuries, the idea that a human-made iamge of the divine contains an element, a sliver if you like, of that divine nature, had a lot of currency, and the intense ritual importance of icons in the Orthodox Church in the present day is a direct descendent of that debate. So, I'm not sure that a general acceptance that an object is man-made would preclude it being divine in almost any religion, the Western European Protestant tradition being a notable exception (along, probably, with Judaism, although it is far keener on the ritual importance of objects than most Protestant sects, while still being firmly against the idea that ritual importance=divine).

Re: Dialogue between the anti-priest and the dying Anne (I know, I'm evil...)

[ajva.livejournal.com]

Thank you for your comments. It seems we probably agree on more than we thought!

I thought you might find this interesting too: I have to say I found debating my younger self quite enjoyable, because at least I knew what she believed, and therefore what I was debating. I often find it really difficult to debate theists/deists and so on, because beliefs vary so widely, by creed and by individual. And then if it so happens that the person I'm debating has an unusually-held or minority view on one particular area of doctrine, I'll be accused of straw-manning if I debate them assuming the majority-held one! It really does feel like having a fencing match with a maple syrup man sometimes. :o)

Re: Dialogue between the anti-priest and the dying Anne (I know, I'm evil...)

[ajva.livejournal.com]

I'm just thinking about this a bit more, and I'd really appreciate - if you have some time - if you could do an exposition of what your beliefs in terms of the theist/deist/pantheist/other axes actually are. I realise that an entire comprehensive explanation could take tens of thousands of words, but if you think you could answer my question in reasonably succinct form then I'd be interested to read it. If not, then I'd love to talk to you about it sometime.

What I find particularly interesting about all this is the fact that we can agree on so much, but appear to derive different conclusions from the same evidence. For instance, to me the idea that religious doctrines evolve culturally over time is necessarily at variance with the belief of many theists identifying themselves with such religions/belief systems that their doctrines are God-given and therefore ineffable and in some fundamental way eternal, even if the details may be subject to ongoing debate. Many theists will posit that cultural development and its impact on doctrinal understanding can advance, therefore implying that it is our understanding of God(/s) that advances, but that God (Him/Her/It/Their)self(/selves) does not fundamentally change. To me, this suggests that these particular beliefs are entirely human-made and therefore in terms of what they claim about anything outside of the human race and its understanding is incorrect, because it implies further that they present no evidence at all for any devine persona, even though mostly these doctrines do concern themselves with describing something outside of material experience. But, if my understanding of your position is correct (please correct me if I'm wrong - I don't want to put words into your mouth), you are in theory friendly to the idea that development of understanding of the devine is how it works.

I could well be very off the mark here, but I'd be very interested in your response to this.

Re: Dialogue between the anti-priest and the dying Anne (I know, I'm evil...)

[ajva.livejournal.com]

Oh, and one little point, which no-one will notice in the thread, I expect: I'm kind of hoping you don't consider any more that I'm an atheistic embarrassment to Dawkins these days. ;o)

[alextiefling.livejournal.com]

Funnily enough, I think the FSM is a good tool for critiquing religion. It's a very well-thought-out attack on a lot of the problems of things like 'intelligent design', 'the god of the gaps', 'directed evolution', and much other pseudo-scientific nonsense. People should be expected to try and understand these problems before they start arguing on the interplay between science and religion, and if this can be done using humour and pirates, so much the better!

I found the Sam Harris video interesting. His points about meditation were really striking. I'm not sure I can see the basis for his estimation that 240 million 'souls' in the US expect the end of history any day now, courtesy of Francis Fukuyama Jesus and his 'magic powers'. Millenarianism is a fringe belief within Christianity, it's only about 150 years old in its current form, and many, many Christians are deeply opposed to it - sometimes on quite biblical-fundamentalist grounds.

I do definitely agree that being reasonable people, and showing ourselves honestly to be such, in debate, is healthy and good and right. However, I don't think that only an atheist is capable of consistently maintaining such a stance. Harris' remark about the future end of racism (and thus anti-racism) was provoking, though - perhaps there will be an end of atheism not when religion has been defeated, but when we no longer divide ourselves up on the basis of our personal beliefs.

[ajva.livejournal.com]

I am with you on the FSM in terms of its purpose; I think it's a great idea, and works well for illustrative purposes. I suppose my claim that it doesn't work as what I called a "debating tool" gives me away a bit! I mean in terms of what I mean by that. I suppose more correctly I should have said a "convincing tool", in other words to be something that can change people's minds in a debate. I think I was not too off the mark, in terms of how many see the concept, and as that was my argument, in that way I still think I have a valid point.

However, it's ironic really - I don't necessarily think that the purpose of debate per se is to change people's minds, but rather to enjoy new ideas and, certainly from my perspective, to get closer to a deeper understanding of how things are. I suppose I may be more dogmatic than I think. ;o)

For clarity - I have never thought, and still don't, that people have to agree with me to be right. :o)