More Press – Canada AM & Listen Up TV!
Press March 3rd, 2009This morning I was on Canada AM at 7:40am for about 6 minutes, along with Syed Soharwardy of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada (wonder if we could ever get away with an Atheist Supreme Council of Canada? Nah, they might call us arrogant).
As you can read:
The Islamic Supreme Council of Canada says it will pay for its own bus billboards — slogan to be determined — to defend people of faith against those who question God’s existence.
Soharwardy is more then welcome to get into the spirit of the campaign. It’s curious though that he originally wished our ads were refused throughout Canada. His stance on free speech seems to be inconsistent. Recall he’s the fellow who brought the Western Standard to the Human Rights commission for publishing the Mohamed cartoons, then had a sudden change of heart and withdrew his complaint. I do hate how the media (or is it Mr. Soharwardy?) speak of his initiative as “countering” our ad and as “defending” godfearing Canadians. Our campaign is not about attacking anyone and its certainly not meant to polarize the issue with counter and counter-counter campaigns. We are interested in a genuine dialogue. We are happy to work with anyone – UCC, ISCC, etc – towards that end. Expect a full report of the show this evening.
Yesterday Chris Hammond and I were interviewed by Lorna Dueck of Listen Up TV!, a television program “exploring news and current affairs from a Christian worldview.” It’s an independent TV program in which they get their show broadcast on various networks. It’s precisely the sort of setup the Freethought Association of Canada would like to engage in, albeit with a different perspective. Lorna and I dialogue with each other frequently in the Globe and Mail online. This was my first opportunity to speak with her face to face.
It was also the first time I’ve been interviewed for a program with a Christian leaning outside of the Michael Coren Show. I really enjoyed the opportunity to address some of the sorts of questions a Christian audience might want to ask an atheist in the street. Here are a sample of the questions we were asked and some points I tried to make in response. I’d like to get your input. It’s very difficult – yet exciting – to try to represent a community that is characterized by its very lack of dogma, doctrine or even consistency on a single issue.
1. “There probably is no god,” why do you say that?
- Everything we know is consistent with a naturalistic universe
- To posit god on top of that requires that theists meet a burden of proof that has not in our opinion been met
2. What hope does your choice to live as an atheist give you?
- It sounds odd to put this in terms of “choice”. I don’t see myself as having a choice regarding my belief or lack thereof. I think a religious person – a jew, muslim or Christian – would probably say the same thing.
- Consider how unlikely we are to even be living. I like the Richard Dawkins quote: “We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Arabia. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively exceeds the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here.”
- Living as an atheist is fresh and exhilarating because we can define – together and alone – our own purpose and meaning, rather then having it imposed on us from a transcendental external entity
3. What is your answer to evil in the world?
- There is no transcendental entity or essence we can call good or evil
- Each human being has the potential for acts of good and bad. Understanding that is an important prerequisite for controlling our primitive animal tendencies
4. Where do your personal values originate from?
- the values of scientific inquiry are the values of liberal and secular democracies and its no accident the rise of democracy and the scientific revolution both went hand in hand during the enlightenment -> open inquiry, burden of proof, system of checks and balances, accountability, fallibility
- Values are not changeless. For example, as I fight on different issues I began to realize the importance of free expression, not just for me but for the groups I was debating. The value of free speech became stronger and stronger as I dealt with issues that cropped up.
March 3rd, 2009 at 9:35 pm
1. “There probably is no god,” why do you say that?
a) We can show that, on the balance of probabilities shown so far by science, and logical argument based upon reproducibly evident facts, that the existence of a deity is very, very unlikely. Looked at another way, no-one has yet proven in a manner acceptable to a court of law that any deity exists;
b) No-one currently knows the full essence of every particle in the universe at the moment, so none can say i) that they have found a deity, nor ii) that they found that there is none. Hence, probably;
2. What hope does your choice to live as an atheist give you?
Why the a priori assumption of hope (or the need for it)? Hope for what, precisely? Why are you imputing your hopes/desires/assumptions/frameworks to my life?
3. What is your answer to evil in the world?
Contribute what one can, when one can. If one cannot contribute, report evil, so that others who can do something do so. For example: report to friends and family the poverty seen in a country one has visited; don’t be a bystander at the scene of an assault, give assistance. After all, to think that one person could remove all evil is patently absurd, so each must contribute what they can;
4. Where do your personal values originate from?
Leave the things in better shape when you go than they were when you arrived. Do no harm. Treat others as one would want to be treated. Etc., etc.. It is likely that all parents attempt to instill these values, simply because these values usually result in a society that is non-threatening to its citizens. I guess that these are similar values to those of humanism. Ultimately, it’s a biological strategy for survival without too much strife. Either way, one should note that there’s no need to make reference to any book for these values.
It all sounds like motherhood, but perhaps it should.
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:35 pm
1. “There probably is no god,” why do you say that?
Because it says so on the buses and the T-shirts and therefore it must be true.
Isn’t that how the arguments go with the theists?
March 4th, 2009 at 12:05 am
lol Hal thats so true!
“There is a god” why do you say that?
Well it says it in the Bible!
END OF DISCUSSION
Now them pantheists, they make things quite a bit more complicated…;)
March 4th, 2009 at 10:47 am
I believe that “God” is everywhere.
That means that Hal Devon and Trevor are “God”. And they deny their own existence.
This is good.
Ha Ha.
March 4th, 2009 at 7:30 pm
Pantheists are semi delusional. They have sex with nature.
No, they want a sexier atheism.
or do they want nature to have sex with them.
I am so confused. Why can’t all the non-believers just stop arguing on being atheist. There is no probability when we call ourselves atheist.
There is no god, period. END OF DISCUSSION>
March 4th, 2009 at 10:27 pm
“# There is no transcendental entity or essence we can call good or evil”
I’d phrase it differently, as I could easily see the religious types mischaracterise this position. I’d say instead that there seems to be no real pattern to the bad or good things that happen. Which implies that they aren’t part of some divine plan. It’s up to us to fix our problems and improve our lot.
March 5th, 2009 at 7:09 am
Hal,
I thought the whole purpose for this campaign was discussion ?
I will discuss with Justin….. and forward your post to the Ottawa Citizen.
March 5th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
I find it a waste of time arguing with religious fanatics.
“God exists because it say so in the bible”. That is the only “evidence” you proclaim to have and that is not evidence at all, it is a bunch of fairy tales made up by sheep herders.
Show us some real evidence and don’t give us that faith argument again.
March 5th, 2009 at 11:27 pm
“It’s very difficult – yet exciting – to try to represent a community that is characterized by its very lack of dogma, doctrine or even consistency on a single issue.”
Yes, Justin, this is why it is best to NOT represent a community. Be yourself. Let the rest of us represent ourselves.
Even in a democracy where people vote on the issue of representation, a large portion of the community will not agree on the person picked to represent the group. How often are citizens of democracies pleased with the representation they get? Atheists have not voted for anyone to represent them, at least I was not aware of any election.
You may represent a certain organization (Freethought Association, for instance), but this does not mean you need to fulfill that role for the whole atheist world.
Atheists are too diverse to be represented by one individual. We’re not Christians with a Christ to follow.
March 5th, 2009 at 11:47 pm
” What hope does your choice to live as an atheist give you?
My hope is that I’ll live my life in the present based on accurate information about the world. That I won’t give up life now for a future that may never happen.
What is your answer to evil in the world?
Define “evil”.
“Where do your personal values originate from?”
Likely my parents, school teachers, friends, society in general, although the debate on nurture versus nature is still out on that one.
March 6th, 2009 at 2:29 am
Could you add a by-line for your articles?
I don’t know you name. You said “Chris Hammond and I …”
I really enjoy your article above, but I don’t know who you are.
March 6th, 2009 at 3:33 am
1. “There probably is no god,” why do you say that?
.
I suppose there could be a god or many gods, but no evidence has come forth in the history of mankind to verify that any supernatural beings exist. The best a religionist can offer is “faith,” which is a weak position to hold. Faith, belief, and hope have no certainty, no solidity, no security. Fanciful beings such as angels, demons, spirits, sprites, trolls, leprechauns, fairies, and gods are superstitions, and probably do not exist.
There are no logical, rational reasons for intelligent, educated humans to accept superstitions as reality
There may be gods, but probably not.
March 6th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Harvard,
I don’t believe in all of those things you have listed there – But I’m not an atheist.
“God” is not an old guy in a beard – sitting on a throne in heaven.
Luke 17:21
March 8th, 2009 at 12:56 am
Ah, but the question comes up, if there is no God and we are all of random events, how does one decide what is evil (#3 above)? Yes, the society that we live in defines it, and different societies and centuries define different things as right and wrong; but there are some things that no matter where and when you lived, humanity finds detestable. How can a majority of people have an ingrained sense of what’s right and wrong without a moral absolute (such as the conscience God has given us)?
March 8th, 2009 at 9:17 am
but there are some things that no matter where and when you lived, humanity finds detestable. How can a majority of people have an ingrained sense of what’s right and wrong without a moral absolute
Believer,
Your conclusion about the history of humans and their moral beliefs has not been established by any historical or scientific evidence.
There were humans in Indonesia still practicing cannibalism in the early part of the 20th century. You might find that detestable, but their society did not. There were god-believing tribes who sacrificed humans by cutting out their hearts and offering them to their god. I find that detestable, but those god-believers did not.
So your assumptions that somehow humans have an ingrained sense of right and wrong doesn’t quite fit the historical evidence.
March 8th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Yes, there are exceptions. There are certainly things that happen that are against the moral absolute that has been established, due to the deception that what they’re doing is what ‘God’ wants. You’ll notice that I said:
‘how can a MAJORITY of people have an ingrained sense of what’s right and wrong?’.
There have been plenty of criminals who claimed they did what they did because ‘God’ told them to do it. But if we just say for a moment that there IS a God and a Satan, a Heaven and a Hell, a Good and an Evil; then there is room to believe that some choose to follow the power of evil. Certainly either path can be chosen.
March 8th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Believer, when Joshua was ordered by God, according to the Bible, to wipe out every living thing in Jehrico, even the children and the animals, was he choosing to follow the power of evil or the power of good?
What about the many parts of the Bible, including St. Paul in the New Testament, who obviously approve of slavery?
Where in the Bible does it say a word against cruelty to animals? Nowhere. So let’s bring back blood sports! Bear-baiting sounds like fun. You tear the claws off a captive bear and then chain him up and watch vicious dogs try to tear him apart. Shakespeare and other good Christians in England were simply in love with this wonderful sport.
Where in the Bible is the crime of insider trading mentioned? What does the Bible have to say against pollution?
Moses was “given” the 10 Commandments by God on Mount Sinai, after they left Egypt. But Egyptian civilization was already centuries old at that point. Are you seriously telling me that they had no inkling that murder and theft are wrong? The Hebrews had never picked up on that message after generations in Egypt? And how is it that the Chinese and Japanese had laws against murder and theft way before they came into contact with the west and its bibles?
The claim that religion or your invisible “God” are the source of human morality is pure bullshit!
March 8th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
Believer,
The examples I gave were the MAJORITY at some point in time in a certain region. These are not aberrations they are the norm.
Fetal Alcohol Syndrome has been linked in some children with a lack of the ability to learn right from wrong.If god, as you suggest, were the originator of conscience and a sense of right and wrong then alcohol during pregnancy should have no effect whatsoever.
March 8th, 2009 at 11:08 pm
Michel,
You’re absolutely right and prove my point. We have an innate sense of right and wrong from the conscience we are given, with or without the written text of a Bible, or any other religious literature. Also, keep in mind that just because something is not specifically mentioned, doesn’t mean that it’s right because it’s not listed and there’s nothing specific written about it. Do we really expect a guide book to have every single possible offense listed? It seems from the vulgar comment made at the end of your response that this has turned away from a thoughtful discussion; I would just like to leave you with the fact that I truly believe that God loves you regardless of what you say and feel on the topic. And I absolutely mean that in a well meaning and kind way, not to make you feel as if I were judging your opinions.
Lynda,
The consequences of human sins (such as drunkenness) are the price that we pay. If sin had no consequence, would we ever learn? Much like an undisciplined child. Thank you for the discussion and I hope you find what you’re looking for.
March 9th, 2009 at 9:36 am
Believer:
First of all, if you are sensitive to words like “bullshit” I will not use them. My apologies.
So we both agree that while religions and so-called “Holy Books” teach some morality, in many places they are confusing or downright contrary to our own morality. For example, the Bible says homosexuals should be put to death and that it is all right to sell your daighter into slavery.
But like most religious people, Believer, you then make that illogical leap that our sense of right and wrong is “given” to us. And I will not bother to ask by whom you think it was “given” because I think I know what you will say.
This is the frustrating part about even debating with theists. They will walk with you in logic and common sense as long as it suits them, but then suddenly, when it suits them, they make their famous “leap of faith” into the world of invisible gods and magic powers that defy all known scientific facts. Since this given “conscience” like your god, is conveniently invisible, untouchable etc., it becomes impossible to discuss logically with persons of “Faith”.
March 9th, 2009 at 9:47 am
The consequences of human sins (such as drunkenness) are the price that we pay.
Believer,
This statement has nothing to do with the argument about the origins of conscience and a sense of right or wrong.
It does, however, show how mistaken you are about alcoholism. It is a disease, not a “sin”.
March 9th, 2009 at 11:45 am
Believer, your answer to Skeptical Lynda is, I am afraid, all too typical of what it is like to argue with “persons of faith”.
Stop and look at the logic you are using:
You say: There is a conscience that was “given” to us (presumably by your alleged god) that accounts for our ability to distinguish right from wrong.
Then Lynda says in post no. 18, above: “Fetal Alcohol Syndrome has been linked in some children with a lack of the ability to learn right from wrong.If god, as you suggest, were the originator of conscience and a sense of right and wrong then alcohol during pregnancy should have no effect whatsoever.
Then YOU reply with a total non-sequitur in post no. 19, in which you say: “The consequences of human sins (such as drunkenness) are the price that we pay.”
Now, if this is NOT a non-sequitur, what you are saying in reply to Lynda is that your loving God chooses to punish expectant mothers who drink excessively by depriving their CHILD (?????) of a conscience that he gives to other people. If an omnipotent God wishes to punish a pregnant woman for drinking, surely he is capable of giving her horrible hangovers or whatever without harming the child, who has done nothing wrong. If your god is incapable of punishing the mother without harming an innocent child, then he is not omnipotent.
If he chooses to harm an innocent child because its mother was a drunk, then he is cruel and unfair. And here is the truly ironic part, Believer. In judging the action of God to be cruel and unfair,I would be using the “conscience” that you yourself allege was given to me by your god!!!!!!!!
Finally, there is another fact. Not all children born with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome are lacking a sense of right and wrong. People with FAS are often a bit odd-looking with abnormally-set eyes, but many of them are highly intelligent and perfectly capable of morality.
So this means that your god not only punishes innocent children whose mothers are drunks, but only punishes some and not others.
Now, you are welcome to answer, Believer, but I think I can anticipate what you will do. Now that you are cornered in the land of Logic, you will make the “Leap of Faith” to the island of belief, where nobody can ever be cornered by logic, and you will answer me with some vague answer like “Who are you to tell God what to do?” or “The Lord works in mysterious ways his wonders to perform”. I may be wronmg in anticipating your answer, Believer. If so, prove me wrong.
March 9th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Believer said, “How can a majority of people have an ingrained sense of what’s right and wrong without a moral absolute (such as the conscience God has given us)?”
Wouldn’t it make more sense if our ingrained conscience is encoded in our DNA as the result of evolution, just like everything else we are born with?
March 9th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
The argument that the United Church is behind the Athiest bus program is very weak. The United Church is falling apart at the seams and this is just one more nail in the coffin of the United Church . Very soon,this entity will be at the same level as the Athiest entity.Water finds it,s own level.
March 9th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
Michel, good comment in #22! I think it is reasonable to assume that Believer is wading quite blissfully along the muddy shores of the “Island of Belief” completely unaware of the dangers lurking within those cloudy waters.
March 27th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
Now how did I miss this page.
“Everything we know is consistent with a naturalistic universe
To posit god on top of that requires that theists meet a burden of proof that has not in our opinion been met”
Justin, when are you going to crawl out from under that media spotlight and actually take *me* on, anyway?
The only thing consistent with a 100% naturalistic universe is to define the universe as 100% defined by the current body of peer-reviewed science, which is the *opposite* use of science as a vehicle for experiment and observation.
Wow.
(More specifically, the origin of inertia and time are *not* within the realm of science, they lie in the realm of philosophy).
vis-a-vis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach's_principle “vague hypothesis”
March 29th, 2009 at 12:00 am
Jeff K
You are correct that if you posited a 100% naturalistic universe and inferred that there is no god then you would be doing the opposite of science. But that’s not how it is done. One looks at the evidence, sees no need for the god hypothesis and constructs a world view based on the peer reviewed science giving a naturalistic worldview. If science proves/finds god then the naturalistic worldview will include god.
The first problem with this discussion is the definition of god. The one-eyed man is god in the land of the blind but for the purposes here god is more vague. Obviously all-powerful or omniscient are logically paradoxical concepts so they make poor definitions. Nonetheless this tends to be what Abrahamic religions teach (roughly). Mathematically this god is not possible as Mach’s principle postulates and modern work is showing (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=limits-on-human-comprehension).
See I think the misunderstanding comes from viewing scientific naturalism as a religion and thus a dogmatic axiom. For scientific naturalism, unlike religion, one first decides evidence and not authority is the measure for “truth” or “knowledge”. This leads one to scientific naturalism since all the evidence accepted is scientific (although one could use other “evidence” such as anecdotal or “feeling” but that’s a tangent). Thus scientific naturalism is not based on authority and is not taken as such but it is evidence based and comes after the gathering of evidence. (It logically similar to innocent until proven guilty vs guilty until proven innocent.) This is why believers will dispute reality (earth is 6000 years old, the planets are perfect spheres with the earth at the center etc) since first comes their belief then they fit in the evidence which is opposite to what scientific naturalism is about.
Hope this clears things up!
March 30th, 2009 at 12:52 am
Well, surprise, I’m a scientific naturalist.
I do have a philosophical education, however, and unfortunately I do not believe Mach’s principle is correct.
This is where American philosophy is coloring the issue. This philosophy is heavily ad-hominem based in the area of reasoning and pollutes our school text books here as well. [I cite “Dignity of the Nation” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dignity_of_a_State
for this. I have a rather expensive Japanese philosophy book that might be a littler harder to get a hold of, so I’ll cite it only if you don’t buy my argument here;
Namely that American science is designed for client states such as Britain and now with the push into Canada to establish a faux-atheist faux-socialist matrix where indigenous scientific progress is intentionally stymied by limiting access to equipment and philosophy that treats science as a vehicle for the advancement of knowledge, instead of the proliferation of supposedly “calming” atheist books full of ad-hominem philosophical points.
Fortunately, if I might use the common vernacular, God doesn’t give a crap, and I will burn your atheist science in my own personal creation of hell-fire.