From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Subject: Re: Just how much smarter are atheists?
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:45:20 GMT

Damn, done it again. Sorry for the length.

In article <910773f.30.724186770@ace.acadiau.ca> 910773f@ace.acadiau.ca
(HEATHER LEE FYFFE) writes:

> [most points handled in other replies, thus much deletia]


> Like I said, I'm not dimwitted, nor am I superstitious.

In what way are you not superstitious? You claim that a supernatural realm
exists, and your only evidence for that claim is subjective (if this is not
the case and you have some objective evidence, do tell). This seems to me
to be definitive superstition.


> Everyone, whether they will admit it or not, knows that they have a soul.

This one is both logically indefensible and an accusation of dishonesty
against those who do not share [this part of] your worldview. We are used to,
and extremely bored with, such accusations from Christians around here, and
I had hoped for better from you judging by the earlier parts of your post,
where you led us to believe that you might be pervious to logic.

I do *not* know that I have a `soul', and regard the word as too poorly
defined to be of any referential value. I tend to try to avoid words which
carry emotional baggage, and are defined hazily or circularly, in favour of
concise referents to some observable or well-defined phenomenon. There are
good reasons for this policy, among them that poorly- or circularly-defined
terms are the stuff on which all theologies are built, and I have a low
opinion of theologies. No, really. I do.

If you would like to advance a precise, non-theological, non-circular
definition of `soul' then we could discuss whether or not there is any
evidence that we all have one. Asserting that we do, and that anyone who
says different is a liar, will only get you flamed (see below).


> Noone can possibly believe that `I', what makes me `me', my thoughts, my
> feelings, my personality, is merely a product of atoms jumping around in
> the brain.

Or, loosely, `Nobody can possibly be able to conceive of that of which I can't
conceive', a variant of the much-vaunted Argument From Incredulity. You are on
very shaky ground here. As another respondent has mentioned, the neurochemical
nature of mental function is very ably demonstrated by eating LSD, which is
quite capable of producing among other things the euphoria associated with
`religious' experience. As far as I am aware there is no evidence to indicate
that personality, self-awareness and other concepts of psychology are any
more than [usually poorly-defined labels for] emergent properties of grey
sludge. Luckily I and most atheists here do not seem to resent the idea that
`we', in this sense, are functioning grey sludge, and even find pondering the
idea and its ramifications rather exhilarating.

Your use of the word `merely' [a product of atoms jumping around in the
brain] betrays something about your desire for mystery, however. There is
nothing mere or un-mere about atoms jumping around in the brain, but you
are implying (emotional baggage, right there in the word `merely') that the
inexplicable is superior to, or more desirable in some way than, the explicable
(not that higher mental functioning is anything *like* explicable in such
low-level terms, or even in high-level ones as yet).

This adulation of, and the finding of virtue in, mystery for its own sake is
a hallmark of religious thought. How about "merely a product of God jumping
around in the brain"? No, not enough mystery to suit God, who is primarily,
and *has* to be for religious purposes, mysterious. How higher mental
functions arise from low-level neurochemical processes is one *heck* of a
mystery with no `mereness' anywhere to be seen, but since there is some hope
that light will be shed in the future, it's not damn mysterious enough for
the religious mind. Eternal and, by construction, insoluble mysteries only
need apply; in other words, the fruits of theology like the `soul'. Gakk.


> You all know that there is something intangible that is `you'. This is
> spirituality - not believing in ghosts, but believing in people. All
> people also wonder, at least a little bit, `why'.

One of my greatest personal liberations, if not the greatest, was the
realisation that there need be no `why'.


> This is the God-shaped hole. The longing for a purpose, the human condition.

Many of us here would say that you have it backwards if a recent thread
on why people develop[ed] religion is anything to go by. The inappropriate
and misconceived *projection* of our animal sense of purpose (as imbued by
evolution, i.e. to survive, to avoid pain, to have sex etc. etc.), on to a
purposeless but poorly-understood and unpredictable nature is the mother of
gods, with apologies to the Catholics. ("Hail Misconceived Projection,
Mother of God"? Not quite the same ring, I suppose.)

I will go so far as to say that the very human condition of which you speak
is likely to be our downfall as a species unless we drop it pretty damn quick
and learn to divorce belief from desire, and to employ to that end reasoning
based on evidence.

We cannot, in a very real sense, *afford* the luxury of superstitious thought
and notions of divine purpose or Chosen People with the technology which we
now have. It's just too dangerous. With this many people and toys on the
planet, and soon no doubt rather more of both, we *really* need to have a
single worldview and the only way we can ever achieve that is through
reason and the demise of superstition. That is why I believe there *is* a
case, whatever others on this board may say, for the active evangelising of
reason (not atheism per se, but damn close) although I don't much fancy the
images conjured up by the connotations of `evangelism'. But screw the moral
high ground, I think that rationalists have to get down in the mud and at
least challenge, vocally, the onward march of superstition which otherwise
sooner or later will sink the lot of us. Phew, that's better. Where were we?


> How else can you explain the intense happiness and joy that new Christians 
> experience?  We finally feel fulfilled, yes, this is what I've been waiting 
> for.  Now I have something to strive for.  How many ex-Christians can say 
> they felt that when they left the faith?  Most often they left because of 
> disillusionment, disappointment, and disgust with the Church and its 
> operations.  And I must say, in most cases I can't blame them.  The Church 
> as an organization is materialistic, egotistical, and uncaring about its 
> members.  But can those who left truly say that they have found happiness 
> since?  Sure, you may say it easily, and you probably will.  But I challenge 
> you to question whether you really, truly mean it, or is it just another 
> mask?

Covered by others and by me a little above, but the answer is a resounding
yes, we do mean it. Many of us who were Christians are far happier now that
the edifice of belief which we had constructed, courtesy of The Human Condition
as you said, has finally collapsed under the weight of evidence and reason.

While it's nice to have somewhere to hide from nasty ideas, it's nicer not to
feel the need to hide in the first place, and now we don't. We can engage and
fully thrash out *any* idea without the crippling straightjacket of religious
dogma into which new ideas must be coerced, or dissonantly ignored whatever
the evidence if they do not fit. We need not check ourselves for blasphemous
thoughts, and we need not feel guilty about our desires, as we are able to
acknowledge that they are an integral part of us, not part of Somebody Else's
Image or the work of Satan. We need not fear death because we are, if I may
borrow some words, sure and certain of the lack of a resurrection unto
eternal life, we need not have one eye on our forthcoming judgement, and
we can recognise that we are sludge which has by some good fortune briefly
become us.

Yes, we are entirely untroubled by the fact that if it hadn't been *that*
sperm cell and *that* egg, we wouldn't have been. And so on down the line.
And we can laugh at *really* sick and filthy jokes as we never could as
Christians.


> I have to wonder about those who can do nothing but flame, flame, flame we 
> Christians.

Always felt that the lion method was more environmentally sound myself.


> Any attempt at serious discussion is countered with sarcasm and vicious
> attacks. Sure, there are some Christians who attack too. I must wonder
> what their motivations are, and how they can possibly think they're 
> doing any good, and if they've considered whether Jesus would approve of 
> their actions...  But to the atheist who merely flames, I must ask why?

I refer you to your accusation of dishonesty against those who disagree with
your far-from-obvious assertion that we all have souls. Oh yeah, the "or is
it just another mask?" business was rather offensive too, implying at least
some deceit (the first mask, whatever that's all about) on the part of anyone
who claims to disagree with you.

This kind of thing, especially in an opening post, tends to act a bit like
one of those laser dots you see briefly on the sides of tanks.


> Are you afraid of actual discussion? Are you so insecure in your own
> beliefs that you must brush off any contradictory statements without
> even considering them?

I bet loads of a.a. readers are starting to wish I was either of the above.
Sadly it would appear not, as I continue to gibber at length.

> Love,
> The Buzzard


Christmas Cheer / Bah Humbug (delete as appropriate)

Simon
-- 
Simon Clippingdale                simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk
Department of Computer Science    Tel (+44) 203 523296
University of Warwick             FAX (+44) 203 525714
Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism