What's this NOMA for anyway?

There is nothing that can be obtained through deity worship which cannot be accumulated faster and more efficiently without it.

One of the major problems with the practice of deity worship is that it halts, or at least seriously impededs, many types of forward progress. Technological progress has been, at least for the last couple of centuries, one of the least impeded; progress in the disciplines often lumped together as “the Humanities” are the most. With recent trends in anti-intellectual, and especially anti-science, rhetoric in the USA it might appear that I’ve gotten it backwards. Let me take a couple of minutes from you to explain.

Many of the attacks on science are attacks on “basic science”. Although all technological progress can be attributed to basic science we are still making significant technological advances based on very old basic science. In order for basic science to become a rate-limiting step in technological advancement it would be necessary to first establish a several-millennium Nuevo-dark age. Applied scientists and engineers are the true drivers of technological progress. Applied science is far enough removed from the philosophical musings of basic science to protect it from most attacks. Attacks on engineers and applied scientists are usually personal, or based on the basic science they support.

The fact that we are still making major technological advances using the basic science of Isaac Newton (1643-1727) is strong testament to the fact that the basic science we already know still has a lot of useful advancement left in it.

It may appear that some embattled basic science is needed to form a comprehensive picture without which applied science is incoherent and impotent. The concepts collectively known as evolution (1865) immediately come to mind. There are two reasons, besides the fact that I can accurately describe myself as an evolutionary biologist, that evolution so quickly comes to mind. The fist is that the attacks on evolution have generated a false controversy surrounding it. Since it is so often being spoken of it is on the tip of the pointy mind of mine that it comes to. The other is that modern medicine operates using well-worn comparative understandings of structure and function; the relationship of the structures is organized through our understanding of their development through the evolution of species. Modern Medicine is a major grouping of positive technological advancements.

How would we maintain our comprehensive picture of life that facilitates modern medicine without the basic science of evolution? We would use magic of course! Things just are the way they are as the result of the unknowable and apparently capricious motivations of a creator. Similarities are just part of the divine mystery.

It is interesting to note that “Intelligent Design (ID)” creationists have recently created a dogma-approved subclassification of evolution called “Micro-Evolution”. Micro-Evolution (MiE) describes the adaptation of strains of fast reproducing organisms, like bacteria, to selective pressures. Since the adaptation of bacterial strains (like enterococci) to selective pressures (like antibiotics) result in many thousands of deaths worldwide it is significantly disadvantageous to force ignorance of the phenomenon. When the applied technological importance of even the most embattled of basic sciences becomes undeniable the useful bits can be extracted for assimilated.

I’ve often thought that a well-educated ID’er could devise an effective alternative hypothesis to MiE. Mixing uncomfortable definitions of bacterial species with elements of synergy and horizontal gene transfer one could develop a Gaia-like localized response hypothesis. If talk of evolution becomes illegal I will author such a hypothesis using a rude-sounding pseudonym.

Technology can progress with torturously mutilated basic science, but the humanities cannot.

I have been quoted (even in this very blog) as admiring the artistic and moral accomplishments of religious society. Even basic science has experienced tremendous advances within rigorously religious structure. Isaac Newton, for instance, was a fringe-idealed religious nutter, yet he created concepts in mathematics and physics of unparalleled importance. These great accomplishments are independent of religiosity.

For centuries accomplishments by the non-religious were severely restricted as non-religiosity was illegal. If something was to be accomplished it would be by a religious person; if it was to be a highly regarded accomplishment it would most likely have to come from a highly religious person. Only after the rise of secular movements did the religiosity of the accomplisher have any possible affect on the genesis of the accomplishment.


Science appears to many to involve only non-religious things:

"A legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist. Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

- Albert Einstein

"Science and religion are two windows that people look through, trying to understand the big universe outside, trying to understand why we are here. The two windows give different views, but both look out at the same universe. Both views are one-sided, neither is complete. Both leave out essential features of the real world. And both are worthy of respect."

- Freeman Dyson

"Science makes major contributions to minor needs. Religion, however small its successes, is at least at work on the things that matter most."

- Oliver Wendell Holmes

The humanities, however, have long been the undisputed domain of religion. But what progress has been made in creating a more humane society except where religious views have been re-forged, or at least tempered, by secularism? It is a compelling observation that: as religions abandon religiosity they accomplish more of that which they supposedly do best.

I might strongly disagree with the assertion that compulsion by a powerful deity is an effective tool for achieving social morality, but even if it is effective; is it the only tool? If we appreciate the sentiment in the biblical commandment 8 (“thou Shall Not Steal” Ex 20:2-17, Deu 5:6-21) haven’t we accomplished most of what we have accomplished for personal property rights by devising ways of protecting them, and prosecuting civil laws curtailing theft?

The essence of religion has been compared to poetry and art:

“Religion is poetry plus, not science minus." -- Krister Stendahl

"Religion is the art of the poetic. Science is the art of the provable. Politics is the art of the possible." -- Paul H. Carr

Compare the languid verses of the twelfth century with Ginsberg or Corso. Compare the cartoonish medieval iconography with even such mundane works as the mass-pulp Japanese mangas. You will not see an essence in the earlier works that services any purpose greater than being a seed that the later works developed from.

Great works may be possible based simply on creative answers to the question: “What does the deity think about this?”. A still greater body of work is possible from answers to the question “what does the human mind think of this?”. The human mind is shaped by the inputs it perceives, and especially those inputs in which it perceives artistic design. By making art for people we change them, and change the type of art that has the most impact on them. Culture can therefore “progress” faster.

Even if we have not exhaustively realized the potential of religiously-motivated humanities we have certainly demonstrated that it will take increasingly unacceptable amounts of time to get the last good bits out.

Hitler was so not a vegan

 Long before I abandoned my tottering deism I developed this personal maxim:

“Avoid all groups that dictate what you can eat”

I had developed this dogma in response to ongoing battles between vegans, vegetarians, and almost everyone else I knew in graduate school. I was ahead of my time with the idea that cultural ideology could effectively be boiled down to off-the-cuff one-liners.

When I moved to Kensington MD my quipy philosophy was often interpreted as a directed anti-kosher, and therefore anti-Semitic, statement. This misinterpretation helped me to throw out my deist sympathies. It made more sense to dispense with the irrational motivations for dietary restrictions than to rely on some special dogma. I must say that cleaning out my psychological shed by throwing out as many special purpose dogmas as I could find has been a very pleasant growth experience. I recommend it to everyone.

Though the vegan-vegetarian-omnivore arguments had many competing flavors there were a few persistent sour notes that would occasionally present themselves. My least favorite was:

“Hitler was a vegetarian”

I have been told many times: that once someone uses Hitler in an argument, that they have lost the argument. Despite knowing full well that the argument was lost I would continue at length after stating Hitler’s food preference. Perhaps once the argument can no longer fly I am incapable of looking away as it crashes and burns.

The tailspin would inevitably uncover some of the same elements:

1. Hitler was not a vegan, and the vegans in the argument were sanctimonious about their epicurean superiority.
2. That the attractive, but shockingly thin, vegetarian: “Would never allow lips that touched meat to touch her’s”.
3. That Hitler was not a real vegetarian because of some failure to comply with some vegetarian code of conduct.
4. That: “No I could not have their fries even though they might have been cooked in animal fat”

The fact that Hitler was a vegetarian has itself been debated. On the one hand people think he was a vegetarian because he said so, had his advisors say so, and was described as a vegetarian by credible sources. On the other hand there are several sources that describe him as a either a voluntary or unwitting meat eater. Some also point out that Hitler willingly had bull testicle extract injected into his buttocks, and that this was not very vegetarian of him.

What seems clear is that the holocaust had little to do with whatever Hitler’s menu choices were. I suppose an argument could be made that the bull-testicle injections caused some sort of Holocaust-contributing ‘roid rage, but I have not seen that theory developed to any extent.

The Vegans always maintained that if Hitler had given up eggs and cheese the holocaust would never have happened.

 Lately I have encountered increasingly vocal denouncements of atheism prefaced by a familiar statement:

“Hitler was an atheist”

Hitler did do some denouncing of organized religions; especially those religions that stood in his way. Those that did not, like the roman Catholics, were spared much of the Nazi’s wrath.

 Hitler also came out as an evangelical-sounding Christian when it suited him:

My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.... When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited.
-Adolf Hitler, in his speech in Munich on 12 April 1922

Sure there was a rich history of Christian anti-Semitism in Europe. Sure the blood libel and protocols of Zion may have been effective tools in informing the mob-motivating hate needed to buoy a demagogue. Sure the term “final solution” suggests that there were previous unsuccessful solutions. But none of this means that the Holocaust was not invented de-novo out of some new atheist philosophy loosely attributed to Hitler.

The Hitler-Atheist argument is worn threadbare. There are no elements of the premise that have not been examined and discarded. This is simply “Reductio ad Hitlerum”.

 I much prefer it when religious apologists simply hint at Hitler: 

“People like Richard Dawkins have occasionally risen to rule nations, and the horrific consequences of their intolerance of religious expression and aggressive assertions of atheism are matter of historical record. It is a curious blindness which fails to perceive that it is the very presence of the Church that ensures the ‘tolerance for all religions’.” -- Archbishop Cranmer

That just seems so much more congenial; doncha think?

Fine Tuner

I wish theists would use the “fine-tuning” argument for the existence of god more often. This is not, as some of you might assume, because it is the most easily dispatched of arguments. It is instead because analysis of the fine-tuning argument requires examination of some very cool aspects of physics and cosmology. There are few theist arguments that delve directly into the more interesting aspects of reality. Many theist arguments turn their back on reality, and then start running.

My least favorite theist arguments orbit around scripture. The most honest approach to scriptural arguments is a resounding: “I do not recognize the authority of scripture, and the accuracy of scripture is usually suspect too”. I find this too dismissive in one-on-one conversations, so I am left pussy-footing around the informational vacuity of scriptural references. I court the blatantly dishonest impression that scriptures provide reasonable information.

My least favorite argument that masquerades as a GOD (GOD is the recursive acronym “God Ontology Debate”) often starts with a statement of the type: “I know god exists because I feel him, he speaks to me, and I see him in my dreams”. Engaging this argument is more an exploration of deviant psychology than actual conversation. This exploration is probably best left to medical professionals who have been trained not to bust out a statement like: “how many children has he fathered with you? I understand he does that from time-to-time”. This statement almost never goes over well, especially when the recipient is male and you reply that “all things are possible with god” when they point this fact out.

I am not alone in my preference for the fine-tuning argument. Richard Dawkins called it "The most interesting argument he had so far heard or encountered".

In addition to talking about cool stuff, which is always time well spent, the fine tuning argument tend to suggest a more deist god than most arguments. It certainly discards young earth creationism.

The status of the great physical constants allows for the condensation of matter after the big bang. It has been suggestively proposed that slight deviations from the current values of the physical constants would have matter spreading out homogeneously, or some other sort of progression which would lead to something that would not give rise to us. The basis of the argument is that fine tuning implies a fine tuner; we are here so the universe was fine tuned.

We are here able to talk about the physical constants. Therefore the physical constants were fine tuned for us to be here. If we were not here because the physical constants were incompatible with our existence then you might be able to say god did not exist, but you couldn’t say that because you would not exist.

This is such a tiny circle of logic it is amazing to believe it could encompass anything. God created the universe, therefore the universe is fine-tuned; the universe is fine-tuned, therefore god created it.

The precision of the argument demands precision in the physical constants. The more leeway there exists in what the constants could be the less impressive the argument is. God must be a really fine tuner to be implicated by the tuning.

If I were to look at a random thing that can be precisely measured its specifications would not necessarily make for a convincing argument for the existence of god. If I looked at a new bicycle, and remarked that it weighed in at 15.172 pounds, it would not make a good argument for the existence of god. The bicycle could weigh in at 15.173 pounds, or 15.170 pounds; who cares (except the obsessive rider)? The precision needed for the physical constants is no mere “if things were different they would not be the same” type statement. It must follow that we would not exist if there were minor perturbations in the identified tuned situation. It is hard to picture the universe, and life in particular, depending on the specific characteristics of most measurable things in it. 

The half-dozen or so physical constants typically identified by the fine-tuning debaters are intrinsic not only to the status of the universe, but to the narrative of how the universe became what it is today.  If we have a different narrative the physical constants could be quite different.

If the universe was created exactly as it is now certain of the physical constants would not need to be the way they are. If stars did not need to condense out of nebula the cosmological constant (lambda) could be quite different. Certainly if the world was made with all the galaxies and planets separated by close to their current separation distances the relative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the universe (Omega) could be vastly different. The fact is that the more post big-bang meddling attributed to god there is the less fine-tuning of the physical constants is needed to make the world a place where we are.

If god simply lit the fuse on the big bang and ran off why is religion important? What is prayer? What good does it do to believe in god? The fine-tuning argument at best leads to an impotent deist god. This is the last residue of god left in the mind of the soon-to-be Adult Onset Atheist.

The fine-tuning argument implies that there is no afterlife, that prayers are not answered, that scripture is fantasy, and that most aspects of theism are delusional. The idea of a fine tuner requires the existence of a vastly superior intelligence that acts like it is no intelligence at all. Why propose the fine tuner? What actionable purpose does this philosophical construct serve?

I discard the notion of a fine-tuner god because he is useless.

The deist problem.

Deism appears to be an effective solution to the difficulties associated with reconciling an awkward god with the information of a modern world. Without entirely eliminating the spiritual overlord one can re-assign its powers to the point that the question of its existence is almost moot. Properly practiced deism is just watered-down atheism.

What makes this a problem?

Theist impediments to progress are removed by deists wherever needed. It appears as if deism sports the best of both the atheist and theist worlds. Deism is an undeniably great step from theism and frees the thinker to pursue their humanity in ways unimaginable to the theist. Several advantages that deism offers are:

1. The fidelity to a theist god is not lost, only tethered. Should the deist end up at some afterlife judgment she could honestly state that “I believed in you more than you made it convenient to do so”. Here the deist behaves like a theist-leaning agnostic.

2. Religiosity is not abandoned. To many deists the watered down god is described as a “personal understanding”. The details of theology are not explained so the appearance of theist belief remains intact. Here the deist is in stealth mode. The hidden alterations to iron-age theology allow an easy duct-tape-level fix. I suspect that the numbers of deists masquerading as theists is legion.

3. Morality becomes the process of determining right and wrong as opposed to the process of interpreting scripture. It is from this juncture that most theists begin the journey to deism. A majority of modern theists (so large that only a ignorable margin remain) believe that certain scripturally allowed activities, like slavery, are simply wrong. This is more than pick and choose theism, this is righteousness of morality beating the pulp out of dogmatic scriptural theism. This is the crowning triumph of deism. A livable modern world would be impossible without first arriving at this theological milestone.

4. The deist does not need to adventure beyond a “theological comfort envelope”. Since theology itself evolved to provide for the believer the deist actively avoids leaving the fruits of theology to wither on the vine. It is in this apparent benefit that the trouble for deism lurks. Theism remains the crutch onto which the deist leans as if injured, but the deist is whole. Thousands of years of theist rhetoric have created a language of the sublime without which it may appear that some of the more awesome aspects of being human are abandoned.
   
   

Many adult onset atheists, myself included, have passed through a deist stage to arrive where we are today. Those who have simply abandoned all faith in a single defining moment and plunged into non-belief have, in my opinion, missed out.

The deist stage is a time of assembly. Introspection and experimentation help us to create a personalized approach to managing life's intangible benefits. Without a well defined atheistic tool set for life the aspiring atheist must assemble one that works for them.

Life cannot be put on hold while one figures out how to live it. For the type I atheists this assembly might best be done whilst a teenager. The adult onset (type II) atheist can ill afford the awkwardness associated with figuring out how to live after several decades of life. For the type II atheist the deism developmental stage is almost necessary for developing an into an effective adult atheist.

What then is the deist problem?

The problem arises in passing through the deist stage. As theism is abandoned by degrees the theology of the transitioner becomes more stable. New tool are brought to bear on those difficulties that motivated the partial abandonment of theism in the first place. Most of the problems of an awkward god are eliminated by determined deism. At some point the way forward is not clear. The motivation to proceed through deism evaporates. Imagined obstacles prevent further progress and we stagnate. The problem with deism is that it is a trap.

Discovering atheism unveils important human needs. Being revealed allows the atheist to design approaches to meeting those needs based on all available information. It is the nuts and bolts of those approaches as practiced in my life that is the attempted substance of this blog. When I was a deist the accepted approach was to describe all unanswered questions as the will of god. Only so far as god revealed herself to me was I able to understand those aspects of my life. she also took care of the unimportant aspects of life. I only needed to wordy when I needed to worry and at those times things would be taken care of anyway. It was actually a pretty nice passive arrangement.

Since I am living my life, not god, there is some confusion over where the line should be drawn between her responsibility and mine. As an atheist the act of living my life becomes the motivating reason for doing so. I decide what type of life I want to live and the first question is not “is this god's will?” but “is this possible?” or “how can I best go about achieving this goal?”. The god's will question is answered with shades of ambiguity. The “what can I do?” question is answered by choices of action. The deeper I examine the ambiguities of an awkward god the longer I put off living. When I choose to act, even when I choose not to act, I am living.

An iconic example of the atheist approach to living can be found in running. I do not run because I am a great runner or even because I am a very good runner, as I am neither. I run because I am practiced at getting up in the morning, breathing all day, and going to sleep at night. I want to be a person who wants to run. Specifically I like the superfluidity of running long distances and wish to be someone who can experience it often. With the problem stated I need to deconstruct what it means.

a) Superfluidity is the state of active cerebellum control with minimal cerebrum-cerebellum crosstalk. In simple terms it is the state of being.

b) What are the impediments to this activity? Muscles, Joints, and bones. Training helps with these.

c) What limits this activity? Nutrition and attitude. A plan and positive feedback help with these.

d) What is the primary measure of achieving the goal? Simply the time spent in “the flow” where the cerebellum controls the activity and the cerebrum is opened to the experiential nature of the activity. The longer the better.

e) What are good lead measures of progress to the goal? Time I can run in one session. Distance I can run in one session is good also.

Throughout the entire process the concept of a deist god is unhelpful. Further deconstructions set up feedback loops. What was not working, how can it be fixed? What was working, how can I make it work better? The information that goes into this process is gathered through living. The information is the substance of life. Life enhanced is the product of the process.

The atheist can love and therefore can develop an approach to love that helps achieve a “I want to love more” goal. The atheist can hurt and can therefore develop an approach to emotional pain that helps achieve a “I want to hurt less” goal. These are tools of life developed from deconstruction of the “I want to live more” goal.

One question I get asked a lot in regards to this is “What about a higher power?”. I was asked a similar question “What about a higher power, dude” while I was in California recently. Both of these questions are perhaps better answered in a piece entitled something like “Why be an atheist?”. I want this blog to be more of an “How can I be an atheist” collection. Hopefully, as I answer the how question for myself, I will be able to coherently write down what I think at the time. No promises.

The higher power(s) questions are important. That they exist and are not you is an unsatisfying explanation only so far as we harbor expectations of them being some sort of supernatural being(s).

The most that I feel comfortable adding as a postnote to this piece is a statement that; “without resorting to supernatural mumbo-jumbo there are so many powers greater than yourself that you should have nothing to fear”. I also would recommend that you become a deist should you be at all uncomfortable with being an atheist. 

Star Wars Jesus

Just the other day I made contact with an old friend. Perhaps I would be better to say a friend of old as I had not communicated with them for a couple of decades. In the communication there were several allusions to things of a “spiritual” nature. For no particular reason this made me think of Star wars Jesus (SWJ)
If there was a Jesus that I could really like it would be SWJ. Bleeding cross Jesus and fatherly overlord Jesus actually make me a bit nauseous. The bible pounding poorly defined “you must repent Jesus” often causes me to imagine the late stages of tropical skin diseases.

I am so very pleased that SWJ has become so very popular these days. There are even some folks trying to codify SWJ. They have written a book.

The SWJ I am talking about is the Jesus that is everywhere and nowhere at all. You simply “have to believe” and have “moral thoughts” attributed to SWJ and you can go to heaven. Let the force be with you. A couple reasons why I like SWJ are these:

1) It requires a personal moral compass to exist. Right and wrong exist independent of SWJ and she simply augments this. I like it when people believe it is necessary to know the difference between right and wrong. I do not like it when people say believing in a mythology anoints them with “moral truth”.

2) It is so ephemeral that it can be mapped onto physical attributes of the universe like simply being or the interaction of mater and energy. It is almost the fabric of the universe itself and is therefore as undeniable as chanting OM.

3) It’s existence relies on a self referential positive thought device that is probably quite healthy (mentally speaking).

In fact the only reasons not to like SWJ is the terminology, and perhaps an unfortunate allusion to iron-age mythology. If an alien had no idea what the vestigial terms meant when they had SWJ described to them it would sound pretty cool. It might be a bit pedestrian, as theoretical constructs go. As a mental exercise it could rank up their with Yoga or TM.
I don't think SWJ is a new or compelling idea in and of itself. SWJ is more of a sign of a theological coming of age. The secularists did not have many new ideas when they ushered in a age of liberal theology but they opened a window in society that let people look out. I think SWJ is such a window for our age. I can only hope that SWJ matures from a vague set of notions to a firm religious doctrine taught and canonized. The major obstacle to this is that SWJ is by her very nature a vague set of notions.