Scientific materialism is often condemned by religious believers as being reductionist, as though perceiving the essential truth of something were a bad thing. But does it justify this pejorative abuse of the term?

What do people of a scientific inclination see when they look at the world? They see the complex bonding of elements. They see the intricate play of physical forces. They see the comprehensible strangeness of the quantum realm, the staggering immensity of the universe, the eternal truth of natural laws, the sublime irrationality of pi.

Our accumulated scientific wisdom is vast – so huge, in fact, that no-one today can simply be a ‘scientist’, not even just a physicist, chemist, biologist. To have any chance of fully comprehending and utilising any branch of science means specialising.

But this enormous treasury of knowledge is not enough for scientists. They want more. Every true scientist is driven by what he or she does not know. The existence of science as a discipline is an acknowledgment of our ignorance, but also our desire to leave that condition. It is an assertion that ignorance is undesirable, a form of failure, a primitive state that we, as evolved life forms, should leave behind. All true knowledge is valuable, even if we can’t put it to use immediately. Talking about the curiosity that motivates mathematicians, E C Titchmarsh said:

It can be of no practical use to know that pi is irrational, but if we can know, it surely would be intolerable not to know.

Scientists are explorers, constantly expanding our horizons. So how can a discipline that is almost incomprehensibly vast and complex, and to which we are adding every day, be reductionist? Such an accusation is oxymoronic at best. In fact, you can probably drop the ‘oxy’.

What does the believer comprehend while gazing on the magnificence of nature, with all its complexity?

God did it.

This, surely, is the ultimate in reductionist thinking. As an explanation for the world and all it contains, it is disappointingly banal, feeble, simple-minded, crude, unimaginative. Frankly, it’s a bit silly.

The faithful complain when rationalists ‘explain away’ the mysteries of the spiritual realm – when they provide logical, supportable, real-world mechanisms by which apparent visions or miracles come about. But these explanations are made possible by that accumulated wisdom, acquired painstakingly by innumerable explorers after truth, collected and refined over centuries. Even the simplest assertion in science is built on a sophisticated foundation of knowledge that was hard won and required vast effort.

In this sense, no rational explanation of a supernatural phenomenon is ever ‘simple’, however easy our fund of knowledge has made it. Flying from Paris to New York is simple. All you do is sit on a plane for several hours. What could be easier? But start thinking about the effort and knowledge required to build a flying machine, jet engines, the seat-back video, and you will understand that there is nothing simple about it.

On the other hand, the believer would ‘explain away’ the miraculous (and even those things that scientists already understand) with nothing more than “it’s god’s will” or worse, “we can never understand this. It’s not for us to know”.

The so-called ‘mystery’ of religion is nothing more than glorified ignorance. Can anyone explain the benefit of not knowing something?

If you enjoy the experience of standing in awe and wonder at the magnificence of the universe, try learning some science. There is nothing so splendid as the complex truth of nature.

In our last instant of life, I have a hunch that we all have a moment of revelation. And I think it is this: it’s all over, there’s nothing else.

Even those people who might have been screaming for a priest a minute before, who might have seen the white light approaching (a common phenomenon with near-death experiences and therefore almost certainly some neurological effect), who have even uttered the name of their favourite deity or prophet – yes, even these people must know as the final few cells shut down that it is all over. No heaven. No hell. No harps or virgins. No coming face to face with Jesus.

(more…)

There seem to be almost as many definitions of atheism as there are atheists. Perhaps that’s because it is a proposition that frees the mind rather than constricts it.

Many definitions of atheism embrace science as the framework for knowledge and understanding of our universe. Many adopt humanist codes of ethics and humanitarian principles as guides for our behaviour in the world. These are all valid and worthwhile practices, but they are unnecessarily complex as definitions of the atheism that enables them.

(more…)

[photopress:downey_tree.jpg,full,centered]

Margaret Downey was kind enough to send me this picture of herself with fellow freethinkers of the Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia. Behind them is the Tree of Knowledge which I wrote about in my last blog. This seems an entirely appropriate way of wishing everyone:

A Happy Winter Solstice

&

A Rational New Year

[photopress:tree_.jpg,full,alignright]Atheists in Philadelphia have erected a ‘tree of knowledge’ in the free speech area outside a courthouse, alongside a Christian nativity scene and a Jewish menorah. Sadly, and predictably, only the atheist celebration has attracted controversy and hate. And ironically, the tree has also highlighted the astonishing ignorance of those who seem threatened by it.

(more…)

It’s a common accusation by believers, who feel threatened by non-believers, that atheism is ‘just a religion too’. So is it? Well, not by any sensible definition…

But let’s look at that accusation first. You have to admit, it’s very funny. Basically, it’s saying, “Well, you’re just as bad as we are”. Beyond the hilarity, let’s see if there’s any truth in it.

There’s a problem because defining ‘religion’ is a notoriously slippery task. However, the miscellaneous faithful over at Religious Tolerance think they have a handle on it. Their definition is:

“Religion is any specific system of belief about deity, often involving rituals, a code of ethics, a philosophy of life, and a worldview.”

They go on to say that, “A worldview is a set of basic, foundational beliefs concerning deity, humanity and the rest of the universe.” And they further explain that:

“We also include Agnosticism, Atheism, Humanism, Ethical Culture etc. as religions, because they also contain a ‘belief about deity’. Their belief is that they do not know whether a deity exists, or they have no knowledge of God, or they sincerely believe that God does not exist.”

Hmm. Not very convincing, is it?

(more…)

[photopress:Hitler_Church_220.jpg,full,alignright]When challenged on Christianity’s dark and savage history of repression, torture and abuse, the more intellectually challenged sometimes retort with the long-discredited assertion that worse atrocities were committed by two infamous ‘atheists’ – Stalin and Hitler. It’s a tired and feeble argument, deployed only by those too ignorant to know better. So why go over this ground again? Well, it does have a habit of coming back…

(more…)

I remember clearly the moment I became an atheist. I was 10 years old when I suddenly realised that there was no good reason to believe in god or Jesus. That realisation has been a strength to me ever since.

It was all because of an argument. One sunny day, a friend and I were walking home from primary school. For some reason, now lost in time, we were arguing about whether Jesus was ‘real’. I was stoutly defending the historical truth of the Christ story while he was saying that it was all ‘made up’.

Not that I was what you would call ‘religious’. My family were not believers. My mother survived the allied bombing of Hamburg, and you don’t come out of that both sane and religious. I had, though, absorbed the unconscious, unthinking social conventions of believing that god was up there somewhere, that Jesus was real and that Christmas was great.

(more…)

The BBC’s Have Your Say programme will be interviewing Dr Richard Dawkins. You have the opportunity to post messages to the good doctor – go here to post your question or make your statement.

(more…)

This is something an atheist hears a lot from believers. When I explain that, no, I’m not agnostic, I don’t believe in god at all, the response is likely to be, ‘How can you be so sure?’. It’s often accompanied by a patronising or pitying smile, as if to say, ‘You’ll be sorry if you’re wrong’.

This is, of course, tied to the old, rather solipsistic, argument that it’s better to play safe and believe in god – that way, if he does exist you won’t have pissed him off during your life and you’ll be safe after death. It’s rather like sucking up to the boss even if you secretly believe you’ll never get that promotion.

Atheists have nothing to gain during life and everything to lose after death, the argument runs. Aside from the fact that the first part of that assertion is so completely wrong (atheists gain an immense freedom of thought and action by not being dictated to and limited by religious dogma), the argument is fatally flawed – to a level that makes it idiotic – by the fact that it presupposes one god.

Of course, true believers are certain that there is only one god – theirs. A Roman Catholic knows that Muslims, Jews – in fact, everyone but Roman Catholics – are backing the wrong horse. What they don’t seem to acknowledge, or are too afraid to consider, is that maybe they are wrong – that even if they spend their lives in deep devotion, regularly flagellate and abase themselves, give up any pretense at rational or free thought, they might still go to hell for having picked on the wrong deity.

Indeed, the question – ‘how can you be so sure?’ – is revealing. Believers are people who need certainties. That is why they will accept an entire system of belief even though it contains many palpable absurdities. A rigid system of thought helps exclude the scary possibilities that life, before and after death, is uncertain. Just recite the catechism, perform the rituals and whatever you do, don’t think for yourself.

How can I be so sure? Simple. There is no need to believe in god, there is no evidence for god, there is no rational line of thought that leads to god and his existence is so profoundly improbable.