Category Archives: Atheism

The Malaysian government is investigating an international atheist organisation after a picture of a meeting held by the group in Kuala Lumpur went viral.

Atheist Republic, a Canada-based non-profit organisation, often stages meet-ups in larger cities, and last week posted a picture on Facebook of people attending the Atheist Republic Consulate of Kuala Lumpur annual meeting.

The post said the gathering was such a blast! and shows a room full of people smiling with their arms in the air. Many are making hand gestures. Atheists from all walks of life came to meet one another, some for the very first time each sharing their stories and forming new friendships that hopefully last a lifetime! We rock! it read.

Malaysia is a multi-ethnic and multi-religious country where apostasy is not a federal crime, but critics say deepening fundamentalism within the Muslim majority is threatening religious freedoms, Reuters news agency reports.

Malaysian states that have their own laws regarding Islamic affairs do now allow Muslims to formally renounce their faith,and people are instead fined, jailed or sent for counselling.

Some claimed that Muslim apostates were involved in the Malaysian chapter of Atheist Republic, which has reportedly sparked uproar among some Muslims.

Members of the atheist group are reported to have received death threats on social media.

The group is being investigated by Malaysias Federal Territories Islamic Religious Department to determine whether any Muslims were involved in the meeting.

Dr Asyraf WajdiDusuki, the countrys deputy minister who oversees religious affairs, told reporters: If it is proven that there are Muslims involved in atheist activities that could affect their faith, the state Islamic religious departments or Jawi could take action, New Straits Times reported.

I have asked for Jawi to look into this grave allegation.

Mr Wajditold Reuters that the government will determine whether any Muslims were in attendance at the atheist meeting and if they have been involved in spreading atheism, which he claimed can jeopardise the aquidah [faith] of Muslims.

We need to use the soft approach [with apostates], he added. Perhaps they are ignorant of the true Islam, so we need to engage them and educate them on the right teachings. He said ex-Muslims found to be part of the atheist gathering would be given counselling, while anyone found spreading atheist ideas could be prosecuted.

Read more from the original source:
Malaysian atheist group under investigation over alleged Muslim ... - The Independent

I recently published an articleon Salon in which I criticize the new atheist movement. By this term, I mean the community that has accumulated around figures like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Jerry Coyne and Peter Boghossian. My criticism focused on two general issues: First, new atheisms increasing willingness to ignore empirical facts and scientific evidence; and second, a long series of avoidable gaffes by prominent figures (followed by appalling defenses rather than apologies) that have alienated women and people of color while simultaneously attracting alt-right folks with morally noxious anti-feminist, anti-social justice views.

I awaited an onslaught of internet trolling but instead received, to my surprise, literally thousands of messages saying that the article articulated many of the epistemic and ethical concerns people who once identified as new atheist have about their former community.

One of the most common questions that people asked is what atheists who value science, facts, and moral thoughtfulness should do. Are there communities that rational folks could migrate to? One I would recommend is the effective altruist (EA) community. Although not focused on religion, it is founded upon a deep commitment to rationality e.g., it places huge emphasis on things like Bayesian inference and decision theory and doing as much moral good in the world as humanly possible. The EA community, so far as I can tell, not only talks about being rational but actually puts it into practice, which distinguishes it, I would argue, from the contemporary new atheist movement.

Others suggested that rather than retreating from the new atheist label, one should say: Im not going anywhere Im here to reform the movement. Theres something to this idea. After all, I decided not to move to Amsterdam after Donald Trumps election but to stay in the United States and fight the Zeitgeist of anti-intellectualism and bigotry that Trump represents.

So in that spirit, I thought it might be helpful to outline some values that I think our society desperately needs to reaffirm values that led me away from new atheism in its current manifestation.

Avoid overconfidence. The overconfidence effect is well-known in psychology. It refers to situations in which ones subjective confidence in a belief exceeds the beliefs objective accuracy. As Wesleyan psychologist Scott Plous notes, it is one of the most pervasive and potentially catastrophic cognitive biases to which the human mind is susceptible.

I believe the United States in general is suffering from a devastating, society-wide epidemic of overconfidence. One result is the idea that the opinions of non-experts are just as valid as those of experts. Thus, people who know nothing about climate science feel perfectly comfortable dismissing the assertions of climatologists who warn that ongoing carbon dioxide emissions will have catastrophic consequences. Similarly, Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay have argued that they dont need to understand the field of gender studies to level substantive criticisms of it an anti-intellectual view endorsed my other new atheists as well as, apparently, Skeptic magazine itself.

A particularly egregious form of overconfidence is the Dunning-Kruger effect, which describes how individuals of lower mental abilities are even more prone to overconfidence. As some political commentators have pointed out, Donald Trump and his team of anti-science extremists appear to exemplify this cognitive bias. The result is an especially dangerous situation in which they are not only unjustifiably sure about their views, but their views have a higher probability of being wrong.

Embrace nuance. The lack of nuance in conversations about the left or the regressive left is one of the most annoying things about the current new atheist narrative. (While the new atheist movement used to focus on religion, it is today largely focused on undercutting feminism and social justice movements.) There are far too many examples to list in this article, so just consider one: the bugaboo of many new atheist figures, identity politics. On my reading of criticisms directed toward identity politics, theres a marked failed to distinguish between identity politics as a reaction and it as a prescription.

For many left-leaning folks including the so-called regressive leftists embracing identity politics is seen as the most appropriate response to identity-based discrimination and inequality in society. If society didnt unevenly distribute harms according to gender, race and other social categories, there would be no need for identity politics! In contrast, someone like the neo-Nazi Richard Spencer believes that different races should be treated differently, separated, or whatever. Identity politics lies at the heart of a perfect world for Spencer, whereas it constitutes a mere tool for social justice leftists to fight injustice in our highly imperfect world configuration.

Be curious. This ties into the issue of overconfidence. Indeed, it is the antidote to (falsely) believing that one knows everything one needs to know about a topic. I myself make a habit of reading articles each week on Breitbart and Fox News a habit consistent with surveys showing that liberals tend to get their news from a wide variety of sources, whereas conservatives get their news from only a few media outlets. Although Im typically appalled by the sexism, racism and anti-intellectualism of these websites, I do occasionally stumble upon an article that makes me think or even leads me to change a belief I previously held. The point is that beliefs should never be the points of departure but the destinations of an intellectual journey guided by the evidence, and the vehicle that moves one forward on this journey is none other than curiosity.

One of my biggest complaints about the new atheist community concerns its lack, generally speaking, of curiosity. For example, whereas people associated with Skeptic magazine have given Milo Yiannopoulosperhaps the most gleefully immoral public figure today a fair hearing, my sense, which could be wrong, is that few have actually taken the time to study gender studies or intersectional feminism, or to read the feminist glaciology paper that resulted in one author receiving some of the most vile personal threats imaginable.

Sure, there is a lot of bad feminist scholarship but so too is there a lot of absurd scientific research, which is why Marc Abrahams invented the Ig Noble prize! Just a modicum of curiosity can lead one to discover an oceanic literature of brilliant, insightful feminist scholarship. When I read the feminist glaciology paper, I decided to embrace the principle of charity and open my mind to what it had to say. To my surprise, I came away with a much more thoughtful and subtle understanding of the topics it discusses.

Another failure of curiosity (and nuance) can be seen in the constant mocking of the concept of micro-aggressions not coincidentally, almost entirely by white men. While there are indeed ridiculous instances of unjustified micro-aggressions, anyone who takes the time to understand this phenomenon will see, I believe, that it is not only real but can be pernicious. Indeed, the result of such acts is what some scholars have called racial exhaustion or racial battle fatigue.

This arises from minor but repeated derogatory statements or actions that accumulate over time. As one study puts it, the result is that students of African descent constantly worry, have trouble concentrating, become fatigued, and develop headaches when navigating personal and professional spaces that have historically favored white people. As with stereotype threat, it further marginalizes already marginalized people.

As a white man, I have never experienced a micro-aggression. Nor have I experienced racism, so I dont know what its like. I am extremely privileged: I dont have to worry about being late for a meeting and having it blamed on my race. I dont have to worry about saying something dumb and havingf it being blamed on the color of my skin. No one would ever say to me, Wow, really? You got into Harvard? with just a tinge of racial surprise. No one would ever doubt my abilities because they believe, secretly and perhaps only tacitly, that white people are smarter than black people, as leading new atheist Sam Harris recently suggested.

In the spirit of curiosity and nuance, one can both accept that micro-aggressions are a real and harmful phenomenon while also pushing back against the concepts more haphazard uses on college campuses. The world isnt black and white; its mostly gray.

Put epistemology before ideology. This means caring more about the truth, as best we know it, than ones prejudices and preferred beliefs. It means changing ones beliefs as new evidence is introduced, even when doing so is psychologically uncomfortable. Good thinkers arent those who never make mistakes; rather, we should say that bad thinkers are those who make mistakes and then refuse to change their minds when those mistakes are pointed out to them.

Religious people often offer a paradigm case of putting what they want to believe before what is actually warranted by the best available evidence. This is one reason I jettisoned religion in my late teens, subsequently adopting a form of atheism that assigns a high-percent probability to Gods nonexistence. And its why I find myself no longer aligned with the new atheist movement, with its increasingly alt-rightish political leanings that have led it, for example, to promote factually flawed hoaxes because they confirm an ideological anti-feminist narrative. As one person commented on Twitter, its oh so easy to be skeptical of other peoples beliefs, but hard to be skeptical of ones own. It was only once I became more skeptical of my own preferred views such as that the new atheist movement constitutes, on the whole, a force for good in the world that I recognized how inimical it has become.

It is because science as an enterprise puts epistemology before ideology that it is such an immensely powerful engine of knowledge about the nature and workings of reality. In science, the one and only thing that matters when it comes to deciding what to believe is the extent to which the known evidence, as a whole, supports a given hypothesis. The result is a self-correcting enterprise that homes in on the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth like a heat-seeking missile blazing toward its target.

Prioritize causes. I mentioned this in my previous article. Examples include, first of all, spending a larger amount of time on unprecedented global challenges like climate change, the sixth mass extinction, nuclear proliferation, the rise of Christian dominionism, the rise of Islamic extremism and so on. Even the most cursory glance of the social media feeds of many new atheists reveals a fixation on the regressive left, a community that poses a far smaller danger to civilization than the alt-right and its political leaders.

Beyond this, one should be more worried about the damage that President Trump could do to free speech than the damage small groups of politically powerless college kids might do yet the new atheist movement, generally speaking, is obsessed with the latter. Furthermore, I would urge people to worry more about rape culture and racial/transgender discrimination than trigger warnings and safe spaces, since rape culture and discrimination are the reasons why trigger warnings and safe spaces exixt. Surely its smarter to focus on the root causes than the symptomatic effects!

And finally

Be morally thoughtful. The moral philosophers Ingmar Persson and Julian Savulescu identity empathy, sympathetic concern and the sense of justice (or fairness) as our core moral dispositions. Whereas being smart can help you get what you want, being wise which involves putting ones moral beliefs into action is crucial for determining what you should want in the first place. The point is that humanity cant simply wield science like a machete. We need the moral wisdom and foresight to figure out which goals we should pursue through collective action.

This gets at one of two criticisms I had of Sam Harris giving Charles Murray and his unfounded, inflammatory claims about race and intelligence a national platform. If we think about what sort of society we want, and if we agree that a good society is one without racism, then voluntarily platforming Murray isnt a thoughtful or effective way to achieve that end. Does Harris have a right to do it? Yes, of course. But its counterproductive to the goal of creating a society marked by social harmony and human flourishing. Similarly, if we think that sexual assault is morally abhorrent, then we should make extra sure it doesnt happen, ever, at atheist conferences. And if we care about not alienating women a huge demographic of potential intellectual allies then we should do better than booking nearly all men on ones podcast.

A community that embraces science, facts and evidence must also embrace a moral framework to guide it forward. We must not forget that true progress requires both movement (provided by science) and a direction (provided by morality). While moral beliefs cannot be confirmed or disconfirmed the way scientific beliefs can, one can still rely upon rational argumentation to determine a set of ethical norms and commitments. I would argue that the incursion of alt-right-leaning folks people who statistically value empathy, sympathetic concern, and fairness less than do people on the left suggests an unfortunate deterioration of moral standards within the new atheist community.

Society needs rational, evidence-minded, thoughtful people more than ever. As Stephen Hawking recently affirmed, our species has never before lived in more dangerous times. I once thought that the new atheist movement, insofar as it is a movement, offered a compelling path through the obstacle course of human ignorance and religious fanaticism. Now, I am optimistic only to the extent that people accept the above ideas. Perhaps the formation of a newer atheist movement that both talks the talk and walks the walk will turn me, once more, in to the optimist that I want to be.

Continue reading here:
Beyond new atheism: Where do people alienated by the movement's obnoxious tendencies go from here? - Salon

Many still hold the view that people will do bad things unless they fear punishment from all-seeing gods. Photograph: Fred de Noyelle/Getty Images

Atheists are more easily suspected of evil deeds than Christians, Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists even by fellow atheists, according to the authors of a new study.

The finding suggests that in an increasingly secular world, many including some atheists still hold the view that people will do bad things unless they fear punishment from all-seeing gods.

The results of the study show that across the world, religious belief is intuitively viewed as a necessary safeguard against the temptations of grossly immoral conduct, an international team wrote in the journal Nature Human Behaviour. It revealed that atheists are broadly perceived as potentially morally depraved and dangerous.

The study measured the attitudes of more than 3,000 people in 13 countries on five continents. They ranged from very secular countries such as China and the Netherlands, to those with high numbers of religious believers, such as the United Arab Emirates, the US and India.

The countries had populations that were either predominantly Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Muslim or non-religious.

Participants were given a description of a fictional evildoer who tortured animals as a child, then grows up to become a teacher who murders and mutilates five homeless people. Half of the group were asked how likely it was that the perpetrator was a religious believer, and the other half how likely he was an atheist. The team found that people were about twice as likely to assume that the serial killer was an atheist.

It is striking that even atheists appear to hold the same intuitive anti-atheist bias, the studys co-author, Will Gervais, a psychology professor at the University of Kentucky in Lexington, said.

I suspect that this stems from the prevalence of deeply entrenched pro-religious norms. Even in places that are currently quite overtly secular, people still seem to intuitively hold on to the believe that religion is a moral safeguard.

Only in Finland and New Zealand, two secular countries, did the experiment not yield conclusive evidence of anti-atheist prejudice, said the team.

Distrust of atheists was very strong in the most highly religious states like the United States, United Arab Emirates and India, said Gervais, and lower in more secular countries.

Such research was about more than stigma alone, he said. In many places, atheism can be dangerous, if not fatal.

In a comment carried by the journal, Adam Cohen and Jordan Moon of the Arizona State Universitys psychology department said the study marked an important advance in explaining the prevalence of anti-atheist attitudes.

See the rest here:
Atheists tend to be seen as immoral even by other atheists: study - The Guardian

Typically, atheists in Muslim countries prefer to keep their beliefs secret, fearing their lack of faith will lead to their death.

In Egypt, the situation is different; young Egyptians have been touting atheist and agnostic ideologieson social media, which raisesquestions regarding thereal number of atheists in Egypt, and how the government and religious institutions are dealing with them.

Recently, massive controversy surfaced on social media outlets when Al-Azhar Egypts largest Muslim beacon released a statement that the countryhas the highest numberof atheists in the Arab world. The statement was issued bya member of Al-Azhars technical office Ahmed al-Malkai in aninterview onprivately-run news channel Al-Nahar.

It is not only the role of Al-Azhar and the government to combat atheism, but families are also responsible for thephenomenon, Malkai said during the interview.All questions that have been raised by atheists were met with proper answers from Al-Azhar.

Egypt Independent investigated the relations between the institution of Al-Azhar and atheists in Egypt, and how they are responding to clerics repeated calls for dialogue.

According to a report issued in 2014 by the state-run Dar al-Ifta, the number of Egyptian atheists reached 866.

Many Egyptians opposing the lack of religious faith are promoting a dialogue-based persuasion strategy to deal with the phenomenon, instead of marginalization.

There are, however, those whoconsider it a personal freedom that no one has the right tointerfere with, and argue that Egypt will only achieve progress if people focus theirattention on the workforce and production instead of citizens personal matters.

There is no clear acknowledgement of atheism in the Egyptian constitution, as only Islam, Christianity and Judaism are officially listed.

The undersecretary of the parliaments religious committee Amr Hamrowsh considers the recent declaration that Egypt is the Arab country with the highest rate of atheism to be incorrect information.

Atheism in Egypt is only present in individual cases, not a phenomenon as promoted through some media outlets, says Hamrowsh. The Egyptian constitution does not mention atheism as an official belief system, so it is hard for the parliament to issue legislation that will grant atheists freedom of belief, he explained.

In 2014, Endowments Minister Mohamed Mokhtar launched a national campaign in co-operation with the Youth Ministry to combat the spread of atheism, claiming it represents a danger to national security.

Similarly, Malkai believes that atheism is a phenomenon that should be combated, and said that Al-Azhar is holding seminars to discuss ways to eradicate it.

In any developed country, there is a principle that is followed citizenship; no one can ask you about your religion or beliefs, and all laws are applied without religious discrimination, Mohamed Ismail, an Egyptian atheist, told Egypt Independent on Thursday.

Ismailstated that the citizenship principle is not likely to be applied in Egypt, stressingthat Egyptians are obsessed with religion and refuse to acknowledge any faith that is not Abrahamic.

Ismail has adopted atheism as his personal ideology since 2012. He noted that it is not easy for an Egyptian to declare themselves atheist in front of others, as it could put them at fatal risk.

An Egyptian agnostic, who spoke to Egypt Independent on condition of anonymity, agreed that being open about dissident beliefs can incite danger.

I started to be agnostic after intensively studying science, which made me realize religion is a man-made concept, she said.

She rejects the call for dialogue with Al-Azhar and anystatesponsored religious institution, claimingthat engaging in dialogue with clerics would not be fruitful, as their ideology is different; she believes that Islam promotes terrorism.

However,Ismail says that the recent representation of Islam on the part of the clerics is a good step, as in the past there were only people from Salafist and Muslim Brotherhood political currents that acted as spokespersons of Islam, and they contributed to the religions distortion.

Nevertheless, Ismail also does not thinkthatengaging in discussion with them would be beneficial, saying, I can read what they have to say in books.

According to former undersecretary of Al-Azhar Mahmoud Ashour, there is no justification for reluctant refusal from atheists to engage in open dialogue with Al-Azhar, as it is not like IS or any extremist groups that kill atheists.

Ashournoted that it is important for all state institutions to encourage atheists in Egypt to engage in dialogue with Al-Azhar or churches, as he considers atheism a psychological disease that should be addressed.

The rest is here:
Religion vs. state: Atheism and Al-Azhar - Egypt Independent

Perak mufti Tan Sri Harussani Zakaria said there were arguments among the Muslim community that Islam in its original form no longer fits with the current times. Picture by Choo Choy MayKUALA LUMPUR, Aug 8 Tan Sri Harussani Zakaria has blamed Muslim preachers who disagreed in public today for confusing Muslim youths, claiming they subsequently lead them towards atheism.

The Perak mufti also put the blame on several others, including parents and schools, for the alleged lack of religious knowledge among youths which he said was a cause behind atheism.

The preachers are in a disarray, so many teachings and opinions, until there is confusion among Muslims themselves, he reportedly said in Malay paper Sinar Harian.

He said there were arguments among the Muslim community that Islam in its original form no longer fits with the current times.

So this resulted in those who say previous preachers were wrong. This caused the youths to become confused, he claimed.

Harussani explained that some Muslims turn to atheism since they believe that religions are no longer relevant in this day and age.

Just yesterday, the minister in charge of Islamic affairs said the occasional conflicting interpretations of Islam between mufti from different states should be viewed positively.

Minister in the Prime Ministers Department Datuk Seri Jamil Khir Baharom said during Question Time that the dialectics between some of the Muslim clerics proved that the countrys Shariah system allowed for diversity.

A photo of the gathering by the Kuala Lumpur chapter, or consulate, of Atheist Republic has caused uproar from some in the Muslim community recently after it was highlighted by pro-Islamist blogs, leading to violent and death threats on social media.

Deputy minister in charge of Islamic affairs Datuk Dr Asyraf Wajdi Dusuki said yesterday Putrajaya will investigate the local group, even roping in the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission, as it allegedly involved the faith of Muslims in the country.

See the article here:
Perak mufti: Quarrelling Muslim preachers pushed youths away to atheism - Malay Mail Online

Victor Reppert recently linked to an article on the blogSaints and Sceptics (S&S), Why Science Makes Theism Likelier than Atheism.In this blog post, Im going to critically assess that article.

1. What is the Evidence to be Explained?

S&S begin their article as follows:

Should we view the order of the universe, and our ability to comprehend that order, as evidence of God?

This question suggests two related but independent items of evidence to be explained:

E1. Theuniverse is orderly.

E2. The universe contains intelligent beings able to comprehend that order.

Regarding E1, S&S dont clarify or explain what they mean by phrases like the order of the universe or, elsewhere, the high degree of order of the universe. In order to be charitable, Im going to steel man their argument by assuming they are appealing to something similar to what Christian philosopher Richard Swinburne calls the arguments from spatial and temporal order in his book,The Existence of God. Theargument from temporal order appeals to the fact that there are regular successions of events, codified in laws of nature.[1] The phrase regular succession of events is key; this is why, I suppose, Swinburne calls it the argument fromtemporalorder. In contrast, the argument from spatial order appeals to the fact that, given our universe conformstosimple, formulable, scientific natural laws, our bodies are suitable vehicles to provide us with an enormous amount of knowledge of the world and to execute an enormous variety of purposes in it.[2] This steel man interpretation seems highly charitable, since E1 seems to correspond with Swinburnes argument from temporal order, whereas E2 is very similar to Swinburnes argument from spatial order.[3]

Accordingly, we may clarify E1 as follows.

E1. The universeconforms to simple, formulable, scientific laws.

With the evidence to be explained sufficiently clarified, lets unpack their argument.

2. What, Precisely, Is the Argument?

Before I can turn to the logical structure of S&Ss argument, lets first review some notations which will make it easier to summarize the argument in a concise form.

Pr(x): the epistemic probability of any proposition x Pr(x | y): the epistemic probability of any proposition x conditional upon y >!: is much more probable than >!!: is much, much more probable than T: theism A:atheism. A is logically equivalent to ~T.

The first premise of the argument is a simple statement of E1:

(1)E1 is known to be true, i.e., Pr(E1) is close to 1.

Lets now return to S&S:

Lets start with atheism. From an atheistic perspective, there doesnt seem to be any explanation for the order in the universe; it would just be a brute fact or a happy accident as Polkinghorne puts it.

But that doesnt seem good enough. In the absence of an explanation, we would have no reason to expect the high degree of order that we find. But does theism fare any better? To many it seems very likely that if the universe is the product of an intelligent mind, it would exhibit order.

So thesecond premise of the argument seems to be:

(2) An orderly universe is antecedently much more probable on the assumption that theism is true than on the assumption that atheism is true, i.e.,Pr(E1 | T) > Pr(E1 | A).

The third premise is a simple statement of the evidence E2.

(3)E2 is known to be true, i.e., Pr(E2) is close to 1.

Returning to S&S:

But does theism make anintelligibleuniverse especially one which is governed by comprehensible laws and which can described by mathematics any more likely?

If our minds are the result of design we could rely on them to discover the truth. Rational rulers used laws to govern and God was the ruler of the universe. And it would not be surprising to discover that mathematics could describe the universe if the divine mind and human minds were analogous inat leastsome respects. Finally if the universe is created by a good God, he would not systematically deceive us. In light of these considerations, Kepler and his fellow scientists were surely right to think that there is much more reason to expect an intelligible universe if there is a God than if there is not.

So the next premise seems to be:

(4)An intelligible universe is antecedently much more probable on the assumption that theism is true and an orderly exists than on the assumption that atheism is true and an orderly universe exists, i.e.,Pr(E2 | T & E1) > Pr(E2 | A & E1).

Finally, S&S concludes:

So it is obvious that any complex, valuable, beautiful and intelligible state of affairs including our universe is much, much more likely given theism than chance.

And so the conclusion of their argument is:

(5) Therefore,theism is a much, much morelikely explanation for the order and intelligibility of the universe than chance, i.e., Pr(T | E1 & E2) >!! Pr(chance | E1 & E2).

We are now in a position to concisely state the argument in its logical form.

(1) Pr(E1) is close to 1. (2) Pr(E1 | T) > Pr(E1 | A). (3) Pr(E2) is close to 1. (4) Pr(E2 | T & E1) > Pr(E2 | A & E1). (C) Therefore, Pr(T | E1 & E2) >!! Pr(chance | E1 & E2).

Let us now turn to evaluating the strength of this argument. While I have many objections to this argument, let me present just four.

3.First Objection: The Argument Ignores Intrinsic Probabilities

This argument is a deductive argument about inductive probabilities. As stated, however, the argument is incomplete. It does not contain any premises regarding the prior probabilities of theism and atheism. But Bayes Theorem shows that posterior or final probabilities are a function of two things: prior probability and explanatory power. S&S write much about the latter, whereas they are completely silent about the former. This invalidates their argument. Its possible that (1) (4) could all be true and yet the conclusion, (C), still might not follow if the prior probability is extremely low.

In order to repair the argument, S&S would need to add a premise to their argument which explicitly addresses the prior probabilities of theism and atheism. Now, applying the concept of a prior probability to a metaphysical hypothesis like theism is tricky. It isnt clear from S&Ss article which propositions they would include in their background information for the purpose of assessing a prior probability, and I do not know of a non-controversial way to choose such propositions. Fortunately we dont have to solve that problem; another option is to replace prior probability with intrinsic probability. As the name implies, an intrinsic probability is the probability of a hypothesis based solely on intrinsic factors relating to its content (i.e., what it says); it has nothing to do with extrinsic factors, such as the relationship between a hypothesis and the evidence to be explained.

In an attempt to steel man S&Ss argument, I propose that we adopt Paul Drapers theory of intrinsic probability, which says that the intrinsic probability of a hypothesis is determined by its scope, its modesty, and nothing else. Draper explains modesty and scope as follows.

a. Modesty: The modesty of a hypothesis is inversely proportional to its contentto how much it says. Hypotheses that say lessfor example, becausethey make fewer claims or less specific claims or claims that are narrower in scopeare, other things being equal, more likely to be true than hypotheses that say more.

b. Coherence: The coherence of a hypothesis depends on how well its components fit together.

c. If we abstract from all factors extrinsic to a hypothesis, then the only thing that could affect the epistemic probability of that hypothesis is how much it says and how well what it says fits together. No other factors affecting probability could be intrinsic to the hypothesis.

Using these criteria, were now in a position to compare the intrinsic probabilities of theism and atheism. Before we do that, however, we need to start with the intrinsic probabilities of naturalism and supernaturalism. Heres Draper:

4. The intrinsic probabilities of naturalism and supernaturalism

a. Naturalism is the statement that the physical world existed prior to any mental world and caused any mental world to come into existence. b. Supernaturalism is the statement that the mental world existed prior to any physical world and caused any physical world to come into existence. c. Otherism is the statement that both naturalism and supernaturalism are false. d. Naturalism and supernaturalism are equally probable intrinsically because they are equally modest and coherent. Since the intrinsic epistemic probability of otherism is greater than zero, naturalism and supernaturalism are each less probable intrinsically than their denials. (So both naturalists and supernaturalists bear a burden of proof and that burden is equal.)

5.The intrinsic probabilities of theism and atheism a. Theism is a very specific version of supernaturalism and so is many times (i.e. at least 10 times) less probable intrinsically than supernaturalism. b. Naturalism is a specific version of atheism and so is many times less probable than atheism. c. Thus, since naturalism and supernaturalism are equally probable intrinsically, it follows that atheism is many times more probable intrinsically than theism, which entails that atheism has a high intrinsic probability (certainly higher than .9) while theism has a very low intrinsic probability (certainly lower than .1).

Let me introduce a bit more notation:

Pr(|x|): the intrinsic probability of any proposition x

Using that notation, we are now in a position to add the missing premise to S&Ss argument:

(5) Atheism is many times more probable intrinsically than theism, i.e., Pr(|A|) > .9 >!! Pr(|T|) < .1.

Unfortunately for S&S, however, it is far from obvious that the evidence to be explained, E1 and E2, outweigh the very low intrinsic probability of theism. Accordingly, its far from obvious that the conclusion, (C), follows from premises (1)-(5).

4. Second Objection:Pr(E1 | A) May Be Inscrutable

My second objection to S&Ss argument is that Pr(E1 | A) may be inscrutable.If its inscrutable, thentheycant compare Pr(E1 | T) to Pr(E1 | A). Accordingly, the truth of (2) would be unknown.While Im open to the possibility that (2) is true, I cannot figure out a way to defend it.

Why think Pr(E1 | A) is inscrutable? In the context of E1, A is a catch-all hypothesis. A is logically equivalent to A conjoined with all possible explanations for temporal order in the universe apart from theism.[4] For example:

A1: A is true, and the explanation for temporal order in the universe is naturalistic explanation #1. A2: A is true, and the explanation for temporal order in the universe is naturalisticexplanation #2.

An:A is true, and the explanation for temporal order in the universe is naturalisticexplanation #n.

Thats a lot of potential explanations. Accordingly, this constitutes a prima facie reason to be skeptical of the claim that Pr(E1 | A) can be known well enough to support a comparative claim such as (2).The only way to reject this prima facie reason would be to identify some intrinsic feature of A which either ruled out a naturalistic explanation for E1 or which made such an explanation antecedently less likely than it would be on T. Is there such a reason?

Lets reconsider part of what S&S write in support of (2):

From an atheistic perspective, there doesnt seem to be any explanation for the order in the universe; it would just be a brute fact or a happy accident as Polkinghorne puts it.

By brute fact, I assume that S&S mean a fact which has no explanation. By happy accident, I assume that Polkinghorne means due to chance. But brute fact and happy accident hardly constitute an exhaustive set of the possibilities. Let me add just one more to the list: factual necessity. Metaphysical naturalism (as defined in the Draper quote, above) is antecedently very probable on the assumption that atheism is true. If metaphysical naturalism is true, then it seems highly plausible that physical reality whether that consists of just our universe or a multiverse is factually necessary. If physical reality is factually necessary, it seems highly plausible that temporal order could also be factually necessary. But if temporal order is factually necessary, then it is just factually necessary and there is nothing for atheism to explain.

Admittedly, the hypothesis, our universe and its laws are factually necessary,is highly speculative and not known to be true. But, to paraphrase a point once made by CalTech physicist Sean Carroll, theists like S&S are the ones proposing bizarre thought experiments involving the fundamental laws of nature. So we have to consider such speculative possibilities due to the very nature of the topic and the argument. In any case, this much is clear: S&S give no evidence of having even considered, much less addressed, such a possibility.

5. Third Objection: The Conclusion Confuses Atheism with Chance

My third objection is closely related to my point about factual necessity.

So it is obvious that any complex, valuable, beautiful and intelligible state of affairs including our universe is much, much more likely given theism than chance.

The conclusion of the argument does not follow from the premises because the conclusion compares theism to chance, not theism to atheism. But, as weve just seen, atheism functions as a catch-all hypothesis. Atheism is compatible with the proposition, The universe and its temporal order are factually necessary. N.B. That proposition denies that the order of the universe is due to chance. And S&S provide no reason to think that chance is antecedently much more probable on atheism than factual necessity.

6. Fourth Objection: The Argument Commits the Fallacy of Understated Evidence

As is the case with E1, Im open to the possibility that E2, either by itself or when conjoined with E1, is evidence favoring theism over atheism.[5] In other words, Im open to the idea that (4) is true.I dont think S&S have successfully shown this, however. Rather than pursue thatobjection here, however, Ill leave that as an exercise for interested readers.Instead, I want to pursue a different objection: even if (4) were true, it would commit the fallacy of understated evidence.

Lets suppose, for the sake of argument, that the intelligibility of the universe really is evidence favoring theism over atheism. Given that the universe is intelligible, the fact that so much of it is intelligible without appealing to supernatural agency is much more probable on naturalism than on theism. (Ive defended this argument at length elsewhere, so I will refer interested readers to that defense.) Since naturalism entails atheism, it follows that this evidence favoring atheism over theism.

The upshot is this: even if the intelligibility of the universe is evidence favoring theism, there is other, more specific evidence relating to its intelligibility which favors naturalism (and hence atheism) over theism. Its far from obvious that the former outweighs the latter.

7. Conclusion

As weve seen, there are four good objections to S&Ss claim that science makes theism more likely than atheism. I conclude, then, that S&Ss argument is not successful.

Notes

[1] Richard Swinburne,The Existence of God(second ed., New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), p. 153.

[2]Swinburne 2004, p. 154.

[3] The main or only difference between Swinburnes argument from spatial order and S&Ss E2 is that the former also appeals to our ability to execute an enormous variety of purposes in the world, whereas the latter does not.

[4] Herman Phillipse,God in the Age of Science? A Critique of Religious Reason(New York: Oxford University Press, 2012), 258.

[5] For what its worth, I think E2 is much more promising than E1 as a potential source of theistic evidence.

See the article here:
Does Science Make Theism Likelier than Atheism? - Patheos (blog)

Todd (Richard Marsh) is part of a generation for whom atheism is almost fashionable. This lyrical performance tells the story of what happens when this unremarkable and faithless individual is asked by God (Sara Hirsch) to found a new religion.

As well as being an atheist, Todd is also in possession of a significant ego, which quickly overrides his rational scepticism: initially furtive and quizzical, his confidence and presence swell as he settles into his messianic status.

Marsh also portrays Todd's wife, Helen, as well as his father in law, Pete, and is equally in command of these roles. Indeed, Marsh seems to reserve much of his energy for these ancillary parts, which provide effective emotional punches while also highlighting the ordinariness of Todd himself.

Hirsch's God also thrives while presenting a dichotomy: both saviour and corrupter, provider and destroyer, she lacks some menace during the play's grisly denouement, but her performance is rich in suggesting danger.

To criticise a piece which revolves around the creation of a new religion for being preachy feels absurd, yet the heavy handedness of the final monologue suggests the writer (also Marsh) lacks confidence in his own work. There was no need to evangelise, the audience already believed.

Pleasance Dome, until 28 Aug (not 15), 2.50pm, 1113 (1012).

13 (12) / 0131 556 6550

2 for 1 Part of Edinburgh Festival Fringe.

13 (12) / 0131 556 6550

2 for 1 Part of Edinburgh Festival Fringe.

12 (11) / 0131 556 6550

Part of Edinburgh Festival Fringe.

Read this article:
Lyrical performance tackles questions around faith and atheism - The List

Typically, atheists in Muslim countries prefer to keep their beliefs secret, fearing their lack of faith will lead to their death.

In Egypt, the situation is different; young Egyptians have been touting atheist and agnostic ideologieson social media, which raisesquestions regarding thereal number of atheists in Egypt, and how government and religious institutions are dealing with them.

Recently, massive controversy surfaced on social media outlets when Al-Azhar Egypts largest Muslim beacon released a statement that Egypt has the highest amount of atheists in the Arab world. The statement came froma member of Al-Azhars Technical Office, Ahmed al-Malkai, in aninterview onprivately-run news channel Al-Nahar.

It is not only the role of Al-Azhar and the government to combat atheism, but families are also responsible for thephenomenon, Malkai said during the interview. All questions that have been raised by atheists were met with proper answers from Al-Azhar.

Egypt Independent investigated the relations between the institution of Al-Azhar and atheists in Egypt, and how they are responding to clerics repeated calls for dialogue.

According to a report issued in 2014 by the state-run Dar al-Ifta, the number of Egyptian atheists reached 866.

Many Egyptians opposing the lack of religious faith are promoting a dialogue-based persuasion strategy to deal with the phenomenon, instead of marginalization.

There are, however, those whoconsider it a personal freedom that no one has the right tointerfere with, and argue that Egypt will only achieve progress if people focus theirattention on the workforce and production instead of citizens personal matters.

There is no clear acknowledgement of atheism in the Egyptian constitution, as only Islam, Christianity and Judaism are officially listed.

The undersecretary of the parliaments religious committee, Amr Hamrowsh, considers the recent declaration that Egypt is the Arab country with the highest rate of atheism to be incorrect information.

Atheism in Egypt is only present in individual cases, not a phenomenon as promoted through dmedia outlets, says Hamrowsh. The Egyptian constitution does not mention atheism as an official belief system, so it is hard for the parliament to issue legislation that will grant atheists freedom of belief, he explained.

In 2014, Endowments Minister Mohamed Mokhtar launched a national campaign in co-operation with the Youth Ministry to combat the spread of atheism, claiming it represents a danger to national security.

Similarly, Malkai believes that atheism is a phenomenon that should be combated, and said that Al-Azhar is holding seminars to discuss ways to eradicate it.

In any developed country, there is a principle that is followed citizenship; no one can ask you about your religion or beliefs, and all laws are applied without religious discrimination, Mohamed Ismail, an Egyptian atheist, told Egypt Independent on Thursday.

Ismailstressed that the citizenship principle is not likely to be applied in Egypt any time, maintaining that Egyptians are obsessed with religion and refuse to acknowledge any faith that is not Abrahamic.

Ismail has adopted atheism as his personal ideology since 2012. He notes that it is not easy for an Egyptian to declare themselves atheist in front of others, as it could put them at fatal risk.

An Egyptian agnostic, who spoke to Egypt Independent on condition of anonymity, agrees that being open about dissident beliefs can incite danger.

I started to be agnostic after intensively studying science, which made me realize religion is a man-made concept, she says.

She rejects the call for dialogue with Al-Azhar and anystatesponsored religious institution, claimingthat engaging in dialogue with clerics would not be productive, as their ideology is different; she believes that Islam promotes terrorism.

However,Ismail says that the recent representation of Islam on the part of the clerics is a good step, as in the past there were only people from Salafist and Muslim Brotherhood political currents that acted as spokespersons of Islam, and they contributed to the religions distortion.

Nevertheless, he personally does not believe thatengaging in discussion with them would be beneficial, saying, I can read what they have to say in books.

According to former undersecretary of Al-Azhar Mahmoud Ashour, there is no justification for reluctant refusal from atheists to engage in open dialogue with Al-Azhar, as it is not like IS or any extremist groups that kill atheists.

Ashournoted that it is important for all state institutions to encourage atheists in Egypt to engage in dialogue with Al-Azhar or churches, as he considers atheism a psychological disease that should be addressed.

Read more here:
What can Al-Azhar do to smooth path to Islam for prudent atheists? - Egypt Independent

Editors Note: A former Self-Realization Fellowship monk and current Clergy Project member informs us, with careful scholarly backing, about the similarities between atheism and mysticism. I dont think most mystics would approve.

==============================

By Scott

Self-deception is not difficult. Most of our brains processing goes on unconsciously, without our awareness. Our brain needs tricks or shortcuts so that we can function in our daily lives. But we must understand we can never trust these tricks of our brain completely, especially when we are trying to decide truth from fiction. We are highly susceptible to errors in our thinking and perceiving.

There are two common and natural errors in our thinking that everyone should be aware of:

Seeking Meaning In Toast and Buns

You know what pareidolia is when the image of Mother Teresa shows up in a cinnamon bun, or when the Virgin Mary can be seen on a piece of toast, or, my favorite, when Jesus decides to appear on Fidos buns. Pareidolia is the tendency to recognize patterns, shapes, or familiar objects in vague and random experiences. Our brains try to make sense of meaningless information. There are many cases of people seeing visions, ghosts, and other likenesses in what are actually only random patterns that just happen to look like those things.

Faces In Clouds

Anthropomorphism,attributing human characteristics to nonhuman things and events, is at the core of religious experience.If we subtract all the qualities from our notion of god or deities, theres nothing left to these notions, according to Stewart E. Guthrie, Ph.D. from Yale University, Professor Emeritus of Anthropology at Fordham University. People find a wide range of humanlike beings plausible, such as gods, spirits, Bigfoot, HAL the computer, and Chiquita Banana. We find messages in random events such as earthquakes, weather, and traffic accidents. We say a fire rages, a storm wreaks vengeance, and waters lie still.

Guthrie says that our tendency to find human characteristics in the nonhuman world is rooted in a deep-seated perceptual strategy: in the face of pervasive (if mostly unconscious) uncertainty about what we see, we bet on the most meaningful interpretation we can. If we are in the woods and see a dark shape that might be a bear or a boulder, for example, it is safer policy to think it is a bear. If we are mistaken, we lose little, and if we are right, we gain much. But, survival or fight and flight methods aside, what would happen if we stopped giving humanlike qualities (anthropomorphism) to nature and the universe?Isnt belief in cosmic intelligence, itself, just a projection of a humanlike quality?Can you name a divine or godlike quality or attribute that is not also humanlike (anthropomorphic)? We have made gods in our own image, rather thanthe other way around.

Silence Is Not A Religion

If a God is inconceivable, that is, if He is beyond all time, space, and matter, then nothing justifies conceiving of Him as a Person, Creator, Protector, Benefactor, and the embodiment of Justice or Love.This is where mysticism merges with atheism says Comte-Sponville, one of Frances preeminent contemporary philosophers.If nothing can be said of a humanlike God, then neither can it be said that he exists or that he is God.All the names of God are either human or anthropomorphic. But, an unspeakable, indescribable God without a name would no longer be a God. Ineffability is not an argument. Silence is not a religion, claims Comte-Sponville.

Though we hear, all too often, that an Infinite God is beyond our finite human intelligence,believers and atheists must use the same concept of God. God is a humanlike Subject or Spirit, and he made us in his image. But atheists deny that ultimate reality is not subject or spirit, but rather reality is matter, energy, and nature without humanlike attributes. Non-believers say gods are made in our image.Religion and irreligion both operate from the same concepts, both are without proof (Comte-Sponville), but the irreligious arent fashioning gods from meaningless patterns ina random universe.

The concept of God, Supernatural Power, Spirit, Deity, or in whatever other term the essences of Theism may have found expression, has become more indefinite and obscure in the course of time and progress. In other words, the God idea is growing more impersonal and nebulous in proportion as the human mind is learning to understand the natural phenomena and in the degree that science progressively correlates human and social events. (Goldman)

We give form to the formless, name to the nameless, and make gods in our own image.We can find human agency- spirits, souls, ghosts, demons, demi-gods, energies, life forces- in nature, our bodies, the wind, the weather, virtually everywhere and anywhere we let our human imagination run rampant and unchecked.

The ninth-century Buddhist master Lin Chi is supposed to have said,

If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him. (Harris).

A great master, Sri Ramakrishna Paramahansa, who saw God constantly as Mother Kali, conversing often with Her, later said: I had to destroy that finite form of my Mother with the sword of wisdom, to behold Her as the formless Infinite. (Yogananda)

Even the spiritual masters realized there is no humanlike god and their ultimate enlightenment was to destroy the god conceptin them.Eventually, these mystic sages came toworship onlyformless, nebulous phenomenathat are neither called god nor religious.

If you meet Mother Kali or Buddha on the road, kill her. Kill him. Its inevitable thatthe progress of science, rationality, and critical-thinking willkill godsoff anyway.

=================

Bio: Scott was a monk at the Self-Realization Fellowship (SRF) ashram for 14 years before leaving to complete his education and enter the business world. Raised Roman Catholic, he got into eastern religious practices and was influenced in his 20s by reading The Autobiography of a Yogi by SRF founder Paramahansa Yogananda. He is now a member of The Clergy Project and a successful business consultant. He discusses the hidden, and sometimes-dangerous side of meditation practices, systems and groups at SkepticMeditations.com. This post is republished from his blog with permission and with light editing.

Read this article:
Mysticism Merges with Atheism - Patheos (blog)

I frequently hear from and read articles by Christians getting frustrated with people who take the Bible seriously whether those people are fundamentalists who view the Bible as a historical chronicle or skeptics whose journey to skepticism began with them reading the Bible. The behavior of frustrated Christians typically includes comparing atheists to fundamentalists and using the word fundamentalist as an insult. I am annoyed by this and want to address as best as I can but let me start by pointing out the obvious: if youre a member of a religion and have a problem with your religions fundamentalists maybe your religion has some problems that need to be worked out before you start antagonizing people who left your religion because of whats in your holy books.

In this discussion of the Bible have a picture of one.

When I read the Bible I took its claims seriously. The seriousness with which I took those claims compelled me to research the claims and the further I researched the claims of the Bible the more I realized that the claims the Bible made were lacking in evidence and were often doubted by historians, particularly the claims in the Old Testament. From the Exodus, to the Flood, to the supposed slaughter of the Canaanites, the historicity of the claims of the Old Testament are gradually fading away. I examined these claims throughoutmy life, believing them to be true for many years and gradually realizing that this wasnt the case and this impacted my world view substantially. I did this because even as a child I valued and value truth. I took the Bible seriously and didnt think itsclaims should be unproven but rather ought to be examined objectively by historians and either confirmed or rejected as having actually taken place.

I take the Bible seriously. I am annoyed by how much this annoys modern Christians. Supposed followers of Christ often get on my case for refusing to believe a book that has made claims that have been repeatedly seriously studied and found to be at best lacking in evidence. Theres nothing special about Christianity or its Bible, even if Christians refuse to admit this themselves. Its easy and it might be fun to claim that theres something bad about taking the Bible seriously, even among Christians nowadays but this is a weird thing to say. It reminds me of the Christians who claim to hate religion and love God, because they understand that religion is a bad word, but God isnt. This is a similar trend where being a Christian and twisting Christianity to fit a modern fold is popular but taking it seriously and refusing to conform isnt, and while this its a good thing for modern society that Christians have shown a willingness to mold themselves, at least to an extent, its frustrating that they have used this willingness to antagonize both atheists who once seriously examined the claims of the Bible and other Christians who arent as willing to leave behind their values and modernize their understandings of the Bible and their perspectives on the world at large.

I dislike that not everyone will seriously examine the Bible. I dislike that some people prefer to maintain their current worldview without an honest desire to find the truth and that that laziness can instill in them a hostility towards others who do seriously care about the truth and understand that a genuine desire to know truth means that one lives their lives perpetually seeking out new information and continuously being aware of ones own opinions and being willing to change those opinions upon gaining new information.

I am an honest seeker of truth and that that annoys some Christians is both sad and very revealing about the current state of Christianity and the dilemmas facing Christian leaders as they discuss theology and how to keep people both believing in Christianity and attending church. Once I realized that some Christians had clung to their beliefs through hallow justifications like its the morality that matters here or the lessons of Jesus were superior to the lessons of other religious figures or even when you die youll know! I realized more and more that at least some Christians didnt care about whether or not their beliefs were backed by historians, scientists, and those who study the world itself. That bothered me because I wanted Christianity to be true more than I wanted to feel like I was right, or to feel like I was safe from the threat of Hell. As an honest person I wasnt originally happy realizing I no longer had a rational reason to believe in God but I readily accepted that I had become an atheist almost by accident. That being said: as a lover of truth I needed to accept my own truth before I could begin to search for other, external, truths. And so I did. I hope that you readily accept your truth as well. And that in doing so you examine it and take it seriously, not just because its convenient.

If you care about truth, even if the conclusion you arrived at is different than the one I did I salute you because you are a rare breed. I hope that this post made you think and that we can have a neat discussion down below in the comments section!

Read more here:
Taking The Bible Seriously Pushed Me Towards Atheism - Patheos (blog)