Humanists4Science

The Scientific Method - Radio 4 - In Our Time - Melvyn Bragg

2012-01-27T18:32:00.001-08:00

source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01b1ljm/In_Our_Time_The_Scientific_Method/

The Atheist's Guide to Reality by Prof. Alex Rosenberg, Conway Hall, London

2012-01-20T09:05:00.000-08:00

Organisers: WW Norton & Chris Street for AtheismUK, Humanists4Science & HASSNERS.

Date & Time: Saturday 25th February 2012, 2-3.00 pm.

Email me to reserve a seat. Just a couple of seats left. Its now essential to reserve a seat asap. Email me your name, and Atheist / Humanist Society affiliation.

Free entry, donations appreciated.

Prof. Alex Rosenberg (wiki) is chair of the Philosophy department at Duke University and co-director of Duke Center for Philosophy of Biology. Alex has written 12 books about the philosophy of biology and economics. He describes himself as a 'Naturalist'.
Alex Rosenberg is visiting the UK to talk about his new book 'The Atheist's Guide to Reality - Enjoying Life without Illusions', published by WW Norton.
'takes the sin of scientism as the ultimate virtue. Alex Rosenberg has sheared the nature of things down to the bedrock, and exposed our common vanity'. EO Wilson
'presents a brave and compelling treatise on why you should accept the universe for what it is, rather than what you would wish it to be. The Atheists Guide to Reality, like the best scholarship and science, removes you from your comfort zone and that is the only way to gain new and better perspectives on our place in the cosmos' Lawrence Krauss
'Rosenberg's philosophical temperament is a dead ringer for David Hume's, and his wit isn't far behind either'. Rebecca Goldstein
'This eccentric, funny treatise on "scientism,"...takes a perverse delight in "nice nihilism." Rosenberg doesn't believe in free will, morality, or secular humanism ...this dismemberment of mainstream worldviews abounds with clever barbs and dry one-liners.' Village Voice

We can't avoid the persistent questions about the meaning of life-and the nature of reality. Philosopher Alex Rosenberg maintains that science is the only thing that can really answer them all of them. His bracing and ultimately upbeat book takes physics seriously as the complete description of reality and accepts all its consequences. He shows how physics makes Darwinian natural selection the only way life can emerge, and how that deprives nature of purpose, and human action of meaning, while it exposes conscious illusions such as free will and the self. The science that makes us nonbelievers provides the insight into the real difference between right and wrong, the nature of the mind, even the direction of human history. The Atheist's Guide to Reality draws powerful implications for the ethical and political issues that roil contemporary life. The result is nice nihilism, a surprisingly sanguine perspective atheists can happily embrace.
Read Alex Rothenberg talking about The Atheists Guide to Reality' at Indyweek.com

The publishers WW Norton have booked a room in Conway Hall in Central London (2 minute walk from Holborn Tube station).

H4S Science Resolution Revolution Competition

2012-01-12T23:07:00.000-08:00

During 2012 do YOU resolve to discuss science?

Enter the Humanists4Science Science Resolution Revolution Competition!

New Year Resolutions are often all about ME! ... I'm going to go on a diet, get fitter - join a gym etc etc. During 2012 join the revolution and make a Science resolution.

Resolve to discuss anything scientific with somebody. That can mean discussing scientism or scientific method with a friend. Or maybe you could discuss scientific evidence or scientific thinking?

Enter the Humanists4Science (H4S) Science Resolution Revolution Competition.

Revolution Resolution by British Humanist Association (BHA) is inclusive and open to all, regardless of religion or belief. H4S are affiliated to BHA.

H4S Science Resolution Revolution Competition - Rules

Everyone is eligible to enter the H4S Science Resolution Revolution Competition
Your resolution MUST include the words 'science', 'scientism' or 'scientific'.
There is no limit on the number of resolutions per entrant to the competition
Add your resolution onto the Revolution Resolution website by 29th February 2012.
Email a copy of your H4S Science Resolution Revolution Competition entry to Chair, Humanists4Science. Include your name, address & phone number by 29th February 2012.
Winners will be announced March 2012.

Examples

I resolve by May 2012 to give a talk to my local primary school about 'My Passion for Science'.
By June 2012 I resolve to discuss what I mean by 'scientific method' with 'J'.
During March 2012 I resolve to discuss the science of stem cell research with 'A'.
In 2012 I resolve to discuss with my creationist friend 'C' the scientific evidence for evolution by natural selection.
I resolve to discuss during by May 2012 with 'D', the difference between 'science' & 'scientism', 'scientific' & 'scientistic'.

Prizes

All H4S Science Resolution Revolution Competition entrants receive 'Thank You' certificates.
A minimum of 20 people entering the Competition triggers prize giving.

Winner receives 'Magic of Reality - How we know what's really true' by Richard Dawkins (BHA Vice President)
Runner-up receives 'On Being - A scientists exploration of the great questions of existence' by Peter Atkins (BHA Distinguished Supporter)

Competition Judges

Chris Street, Chair of Humanists4Science and David McKnight, H4S Co-Founder.
Judges cannot enter the competition.

Humanism: Science, Scientific Evidence & Scientific Method

In line with February 2011 suggestions from Humanists4Science, for the first time the November 2011 British Humanist Association Strategy includes 'science' and 'scientific evidence' in the BHA Aims:-

Humanism involves a naturalistic view of the universe.... humanists strive to be rational, looking to science in attempting to understand the universe.

We support significant initiatives to meet global challenges, showing how these initiatives rest on our principles of accepting scientific evidence...

For the first time BHA includes 'scientific method' in its definition of Humanism:-

Humanists have trusted to the scientific method, evidence and reason to discover truths about the universe ...

Humanists4Science Vision

'A world in which important decisions are made by applying the scientific method to evidence rather than according to superstition.'

British Humanist Association Vision

'A world where everyone lives cooperatively on the basis of shared human values and respect for human rights.'

Celebrities discuss New Years Resolutions with Susan Blackmore

BHA definition of Humanism now includes 'scientific method'

2012-01-12T22:01:00.000-08:00

Humanists4Science (H4S) Mission is "To promote, within the humanist community, the application of the scientific method to issues of concern to broader society." and the Humanists4Science (H4S) Vision is "A world in which important decisions are made by applying the scientific method to evidence rather than according to superstition."

In February 2011 Humanists4Science made written recommendations to the BHA Board to include 'science' and 'scientific method' in the BHA Strategy viz.

1) include 'science' in BHA Vision.
2) include in BHA Aim “humanists understand that reason and scientific method provide the best ways to understand the universe“
3) include in BHA Aim 'public understanding of science' and 'scientific method'

From November 2011 the BHA Strategic Aims mentions 'science' & 'scientific evidence':-

'humanists strive to be rational, looking to science in attempting to understand the universe'.

and

'We will give philosophical and practical support to significant initiatives to meet global challenges, showing how these initiatives rest on our principles of accepting scientific evidence'

Today I'm pleased to report that the BHA website has a new definition of humanism mentioning 'scientific method' twice:-

Humanism
Throughout recorded history there have been non-religious people who have believed that this life is the only life we have, that the universe is a natural phenomenon with no supernatural side, and that we can live ethical and fulfilling lives on the basis of reason and humanity. They have trusted to the scientific method, evidence and reason to discover truths about the universe and placed human welfare and happiness at the centre of their ethical decision making.

and

Defining 'Humanism'
Roughly speaking, the word humanist has come to mean someone who:

trusts to the scientific method when it comes to understanding how the universe works and rejects the idea of the supernatural (and is therefore an atheist or agnostic)
makes their ethical decisions based on reason, empathy, and a concern for human beings and other sentient animals
believes that, in the absence of an afterlife and any discernible purpose to the universe, human beings can act to give their own lives meaning by seeking happiness in this life and helping others to do the same.

BHA Defining 'Humanism' (click image for larger view at 13th January 2012) or click following link for todays view http://www.humanism.org.uk/humanism

I'm delighted to advise that in the last year H4S has achieved its aims of including 'science' & 'scientific evidence' in the BHA Strategy and 'scientific method' in the BHA definition of Humanism.

Chris Street,
Chair Humanists4Science
13th January 2012

'Humanists trust to a scientific and rational approach to finding out about the universe' - Lords Reform Bill debate

2011-12-28T03:20:00.000-08:00

During the Lords Reform Bill, Lord Threthgowan asked (at 19:18:55) Andrew Copson, Chief Executive, BHA 'What do humanists stand for?' Watch the debate below:-

In summary Andrew Copson replied (at 19:19:15-19:19:40) saying that 'a good definition of a humanist was someone who had a view of life that was not religious, that located values and meaning in the here and now, who trusted to a scientific and rational approach to finding out about the universe, and to a human centered, present world centered approach to deciding what was the right thing to do and what meaning there could be in life'.

Read the transcript of the minutes featuring the Archbishop of Canterbury, Andrew Copson (BHA) & Elizabeth Hunter (Theos). Note: neither witnesses nor Members have had the opportunity to correct the record. The transcript is not yet an approved formal record of these proceedings.

The exchange in full:-

Q457 Lord Trefgarne:
Can you give me a clue where you are coming from in all this? I have to confess that I am not as clear as I should be about what exactly humanists stand for.

Andrew Copson:
I am the humanist. The British Humanist Association is an organisation that has particular aims. A good definition of a humanist would be someone who had a view of life that was not religious, who located values and meaning in the here and now, who trusted to a scientific and rational approach to finding out about the universe and who had a human-centred, present-world-centred approach in deciding what was right to do and what meaning there could be in life. The British Humanist Association is an organisation that promotes education about and public awareness of that view of things. It provides certain community services— for example, non-religious funerals and other services that non-religious people in the community find it difficult to access where those things have traditionally been provided by, for example, religious groups. A third area of work that we engage in is advocacy and public policy issues, particularly in questions of discrimination either in public life or in the treatment of individuals on the basis of religion or belief. Our interest in this particular question is in having a constitution in this country where there is no in-built privilege in favour of or disadvantage against anyone on grounds of their religion or belief.

BHA reports as does PoliticsReligion.eu about the Monday 28 November 2011 JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM BILL at which the Archbishop of Canterbury and Andrew Copson from BHA gave evidence.

BHA Strategy now includes 'science' & 'scientific evidence' in line with H4S recommendations.

2011-12-08T15:25:00.001-08:00

Between December 2010 to February 2011, Humanists4Science (H4S) committee members (David Flint (Chair), Josh Kutchinsky, David McKnight, Dr Tom Rees, Andy Pepperdine (Treasurer), Chris Street) had extensive online discussions about the lack of any reference to 'science' and 'scientific method' in the BHA Strategy (October 2010).

On February 1st 2011 Chris Street was appointed H4S Chair by the H4S Committee.

On 18th February 2011, Chris Street wrote a letter to Andrew Copson (Chief Executive, British Humanist Association), on behalf of a majority of the H4S committee. The letter said that 'Humanists4Science find it extraordinary that 'science' finds no place in BHA Strategy 2010'.

H4S recommended that BHA:-

1) include 'science' in BHA Vision.
2) include in BHA Aim “humanists understand that reason and scientific method provide the best ways to understand the universe“
3) include in BHA Aim 'public understanding of science' and 'scientific method'

The 18th February letter said:-

Dear Andrew,

Further to our telecom this morning, as Chair of BHA Affiliate group Humanists4Science, I am writing to seek improvements in the BHA Strategy 2010.

BHA supports science & scientific thinking by campaigning about science, organising public lectures on science and consulting with the scientific community. For instance, BHA organises the annual Darwin Day lecture, campaigns to make Darwin Day a public holiday and responds to guidance about homeopathic products.

As a full member of International Humanist Ethical Union, BHA presumably endorses IHEU strategy (1 - IHEU Strategy & Aims http://www.iheu.org/node/1531) to promote the IHEU Amsterdam Declaration 2002 on Humanism, the official defining statement of World Humanism. In this declaration, science / scientific method are cited six times (NB philosophy doesn't get a mention) (2). See Note A: -

In the Amsterdam Declaration 2002 science/scientific method is mentioned six times, "Humanism is the outcome of a long tradition of free thought that has inspired many of the world's great thinkers and creative artists and gave rise to science itself". A "fundamental of modern Humanism" is that "Humanism is rational. It seeks to use science creatively, not destructively." … "Humanism advocates the application of the methods of science and free inquiry to the problems of human welfare. But Humanists also believe that the application of science and technology must be tempered by human values. Science gives us the means but human values must propose the ends." The Amsterdam Declaration concludes that "By utilising free inquiry, the power of science and creative imagination for the furtherance of peace and in the service of compassion, we have confidence that we have the means to solve the problems that confront us all.

Whilst we understand that many special interest groups ask to get a mention, Humanists4Science find it extraordinary that science finds no place in BHA Strategy 2010.

'Humanists4Science have 3 recommendations to give the BHA a renewed sense of purpose and vigour in explaining the important role of science in humanist thought:-

Recommendation 1 - Include science in BHA Vision

Humanists can lead more fulfilling lives by an appreciation of scientific findings about the natural world. In making important decisions, knowledge about the scientific method can give Humanists a powerful tool to understand what evidence is likely to be most reliable.

Humanists4Science recommend that BHA include the word 'science' in: "What do we want? (The "Vision") - We want a world where everyone lives cooperatively on the basis of shared human values and respect for human rights. We want non-religious people to be confident in living ethical and fulfilling lives on the basis of reason, science and humanity.

Recommendation 2 - Include science in an 'Our Aim'

Humanists4Science recommend BHA Strategy includes an 'Our Aim' which mentions science.

We suggest BHA choose one of three aims (or a combination of these aims):

Our Aim (option 1) "To help humanists understand that reason and scientific method provide the best ways to understand the universe" (See Note 3 - Humanists4Science February 2011 discussions http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Humanists4ScienceManagement/)

Our Aim (option 2) "To help humanists understand that scientific and other evidence provides the best way to understand the universe" (Based on Note 4 - BHA Mori Poll 2007 http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oItemId=190)

Our Aim (option 3) "To help humanists understand that the scientific method, though imperfect, is still the most reliable way of understanding the world." (Based on Note 5 - Humanist Manifesto 1980 http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=main&page=declaration#science)

Recommendation 3 - Promote science & scientific method

Humanists4Science recommend a paragraph be included after any of the above 'Our Aims': "We will support initiatives to promote the public understanding of science and the scientific method by organising scientific lectures, campaigning about scientific issues and consulting with the scientific community."

I attach a presentation incorporating these ideas (BHAStrategy2010-Humanists4Science-Final-comments.ppt)

Thanks for considering Humanists4Science ideas about Humanism and Science.

We look forward to our ideas being incorporated into BHA Strategy at the earliest opportunity.

Chris Street,

Chair Humanists4Science

On 9th November 2011 Andrew Copson wrote to Chris Street & others saying that the BHA Strategy (November 2011) had been reviewed.

Dear All,

You are receiving this email because you gave feedback on the BHA strategy adopted by the Board of Trustees at the end of 2010. The strategy that was then adopted is intended to remain constant over at least a five year period but the Board decided to review it after one year in light of its novelty. They have now done so.

The various comments received were considered by the Board, which made some changes to the strategy in light of them. I am attaching the final strategy document adopted by the Board. I am sorry if your particular change was not made, but am sure you will understand the large number of often competing responses which were received made that impossible and agree that the final document is an excellent strategy for the BHA.

Best wishes, Andrew

The BHA Strategy (November 2011) ppt file, for the first time, now includes an Aim about 'science' & 'scientific evidence' viz.:-

'humanists strive to be rational, looking to science in attempting to understand the universe'

and

'We will give philosophical and practical support to significant initiatives to meet global challenges, showing how these initiatives rest on our principles of accepting scientific evidence'

This is in line with H4S Recommendation 2, Option 1 (18th February 2011 letter) for BHA Aim:-

'To help humanists understand that reason and scientific method provide the best ways to understand the universe'

However... H4S Recommendation 1 to include 'science' in the BHA Vision was not included in the BHA Strategy (November 2011) viz:

'Humanists can lead more fulfilling lives by an appreciation of scientific findings about the natural world. In making important decisions, knowledge about the scientific method can give Humanists a powerful tool to understand what evidence is likely to be most reliable. Humanists4Science recommend that BHA include the word 'science' in:

"What do we want? (The "Vision")

We want a world where everyone lives cooperatively on the basis of shared human values and respect for human rights. We want non-religious people to be confident in living ethical and fulfilling lives on the basis of reason, science and humanity.

Moreover ... H4S Recommendation 3 to include references to 'public understanding of science' and 'scientific method', in BHA Aims, was not included in the BHA Strategy (November 2011) viz:

"We will support initiatives to promote the public understanding of science and the scientific method by organising scientific lectures, campaigning about scientific issues and consulting with the scientific community."

*******

Maybe these issues will be discussed again in 2015 when the BHA Strategy is reviewed.

What is metaphysical naturalism & methodological naturalism?

2011-11-22T15:29:00.001-08:00

Dan Dennett talks about naturalism and methodological naturalism in debating John Haught. What's the distinction between these terms? And what is metaphysical naturalism?

Wikipedia entry on Naturalism uses the Oxford English Dictionary definition:-

'Naturalism commonly refers to the philosophical viewpoint that the natural universe and its natural laws and forces (as opposed to supernatural ones) operate in the universe, and that nothing exists beyond the natural universe or, if it does, it does not affect the natural universe that we know.^[1]'

Metaphysical naturalism (aka ontological or philosophical naturalism) is defined by humanist Paul Kurtz says ^[2] :-

1) nature is best accounted for by reference to material principles eg mass, energy, and other physical and chemical properties.

2) Metaphysical naturalism holds that spirits, deities, and ghosts are not real.

3) there is no "purpose" in nature.

Wikipedia describes the distinction between metaphysical & methodological naturalism:-

Metaphysical naturalism holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences, i.e., those required to understand our physical environment by mathematical modeling. Methodological naturalism, on the other hand, refers exclusively to the methodology of science, for which metaphysical naturalism provides only one possible ontological foundation (Ontology is a part of metaphysics asking questions concerning what entities exist or can be said to exist). Metaphysical naturalism holds that all properties related to consciousness and the mind are reducible to nature. The corresponding theological perspective is religious naturalism or spiritual naturalism. Metaphysical naturalism rejects the supernatural concepts and explanations that are part of many religions.

Methodological Naturalism says nothing about God's existence according to Paul de Vries of Wheaton college (a conservative evangelical school):-

In 1983 Paul de Vries distinguished between "methodological naturalism," a disciplinary method that says nothing about God's existence, and "metaphysical naturalism," which "denies the existence of a transcendent God."^[6]

The Panda's Thumb discusses the origins of Methodological Naturalism - the idea may date back to Darwin or even Galileo.

Methodological naturalism is a 'ground rule' of science & the scientific method:-

In 1996, Robert T. Pennock used the term methodological naturalism to clarify that the scientific method confines itself to natural explanations without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural, and is not based on dogmatic metaphysical naturalism as claimed by creationists and proponents of intelligent design. Pennock's testimony^[8] at the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial was cited by the Judge who concluded that "Methodological naturalism is a "ground rule" of science today"^[9]

Methodological naturalism, the ground rule of science, & nature:-

Methodological naturalism is concerned not with claims about what exists (= metaphysical naturalism) but with methods of learning what is nature. It is strictly the idea that all scientific endeavors—all hypotheses and events—are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events. The genesis of nature, e.g., by an act of God, is not addressed. Methodological naturalism (cf. metaphysical naturalism) seeks only to provide a framework within which to conduct the scientific study of the laws of nature. Methodological naturalism is a way of acquiring knowledge. "since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena.... While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science." Methodological naturalism is thus "a self-imposed convention of science." It is a "ground rule" that "requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify."[12]

Dan Dennett on Scientism

2011-11-22T14:36:00.001-08:00

source: http://richarddawkins.net/videos/517674-daniel-dennett-on-scientism

my quick and rough synopsis...

Dr John F. Haught (from start)
Religious fundamentalism is literalistic. Scientism is a type of fundamentalism & literalism. Both religious fundamentalism & scientism are saying that their is a 'certainty' or certitude. Scientism says takes nothing on faith - yet it takes faith to embrace scientism. Scientific Naturalism is the view that nature is all that there is. You bound your sense of reality with a type of certitude says Haught.

Dan Dennett (from 4min 55s)
Scientism: I don't know anybody who is guilty of it. Scientism is a strawman used by people who object to science 'poking its nose into places it shouldn't be.' Reductionism / Scientism. Scientists are naturalists - methodological naturalists which is just built into the scientific method. That isn't to say there couldn't be supernatural things but the burden of proof is on the person who wants to invoke them - thats methodological naturalism. We are not going to let any scientist say 'well my experiment depends on a supernatural element and if you don't believe in it then you won't get the experiment. We don't permit that - thats completely out of bounds - thats naturalism. Comparing a fundamental religionist with scientism - I don't recognise that person who is supposed to be into scientism!

The End of God?: A Horizon Guide to Science and Religion

2011-11-11T16:11:00.001-08:00

video source - play until 8:59PM Thu, 17 Nov 2011
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00tw1tl/The_End_of_God_A_Horizon_Guide_to_Science_and_Religion/
First Broadcast September 2010: historian Dr Thomas Dixon explores the troubled relationship between religion and science. From the creationists of America to the physicists of the Large Hadron Collider, he traces the expansion of scientific knowledge and asks whether there is still room for god in the modern world.

Sources of Knowledge: The Scientific Method v Revelation
@ 5:00 Galileo saw moons circling Jupiter - the earth rotates the sun - Heliocentricity of Nicolaus Copernicus & Johannes Kepler is right. Heliocentrism is opposed to geocentrism (Earth at centre). Church thought that bible supported geocentrism - convicted Galileo of heresy.
@ 5:34 Who owns knowledge. What makes one source of knowledge more reliable than another? The scientific method uses observations and logic to produce hypotheses and predictions which are tested over and over again comparing it the evidence then refining hypothesis.
@ 7: 29 Repeatability, accuracy, rigour and relevance is at the heart of the scientific method - not foolproof but in last 400 years has uncovered fundamentals of our world.
@ 8:30 The religious claim to get knowledge through revelation - direct communication from God.

Creationism v Evolution
@ 15: 40 Creationism was taught in American schools and Evolution teaching was banned from 1925 (Scopes trial) until 1987 when the highest court in America ruled that creationism was unconstitutional violating separation of church and state - Creationism was banned from the science curriculum.
@ 16:02 for scientists ancient religious texts are not sources of knowledge about the natural world and to treat them as if they are is absurd. There is no room for biblical creationism in modern science.
@ Creationist & Biochemist Michael Behe claimed that the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex, could not have evolved and must have designed in its complete form, by an intelligent designer. This idea was refuted by Kenneth Miller - found examples of simpler flagellum which worked.
@ 20:00 in 2006 Dover court trial ruled that teaching Intelligent Design was unconstitutional, unscientific, was a religious theory; banned from biology classes in public schools
@25: 20. The proposition that an intelligent designer could have created life was not scientific.

God of the Gaps
@26:12 Placing god in the gaps of scientific theory is not a good strategy because the history of science shows that these gaps have a tendency to be filled.
@28:00 Colin Blakemore (Distinguished Supporter of British Humanist Association) visited Lourdes and concluded that the placebo effect could explain 'miracles'. God of the Gaps - healing people has been explained by the science of the mind.

The Sensed Presence - why our brains are god receptors
@35:00 Using the controversial 'god helmet' Michael Persinger suggests that the 'sensed presence' (ie feeling the presence of something bigger than oneself) could be stimulated by activating the right hemisphere temporal lobe. However the helmet could not give a religious experience to Richard Dawkins!
@39:00 in meditation blood flow (red) in the parietal lobes reduces - our sense of time and place is reduced with a loss of sense of self. People who meditate and pray have same brain chemistry effects.

During meditation...

blood flowing to parietal lobes is reduced

How did our Universe start?
@44:00 god is being pushed into smaller and smaller crevices.
@49:00 the Higgs Particle if found at LHC may explain the 75% of the universe is Dark Energy
@51:00 gravity strength is just right. Paul Davies (Goldilocks Enigma) says the universe is a 'put up job'. Some have seen the sheer improbability of our existence as evidence of a higher being but Stephen Hawking disagrees. Their may be an infinite number of (multiple) universes or multiverses. But if multiverses cannot be tested for, is science and religion so different after all? Why does anything exist at all? Why do humans finds ourselves on this Earth? And whats it all for?

Will the idea of God ever go away?
@56:00 Thomas Dixon asks: When scientists have a total understanding of our universe (scientism) will the idea of gods go away? TD says probably not because science can not give something that religions offer - meaning and purpose to our lives. Religion has extreme tenacity (a digression: Richard Dawkins interviewed by Jeremy Paxman about The God Delusion). Whether or not God exists it seems we find it very easy to believe in him, because the brain has evolved to believe in the god hypothesis.

'Science is independent of humanism' Julian Baggini

2011-11-06T12:41:00.000-08:00

Science is independent of humanism, atheism and religion says Julian Baggini (Distinguished BHA Supporter) in The Guardian. He says some atheists believe that not only is science 'on their side', but it is their saviour too. This is scientism - the idea that if science cannot speak, we must remain silent. By contrast, some say that, as science leaves many questions open, in such cases, man is entitled to base his judgements on non-scientific grounds.

Science can threaten secular humanist ideas. For example, humans have been viewed as autonomous, free, rational individuals. However science has shown that human beings are far less autonomous, rational and free than some secular humanists might suppose, says Baggini.

Atheists are naturalists (the universe contains only natural entities and forces). H4S take a naturalistic view, believing that science is a fundamental part of humanism and that science provides the best way to understand the universe.

Can science be applied to problems of human welfare (2002 Amsterdam Declaration), asks Baggini? In Sam Harris's book The Moral Landscape (subtitled "How science can determine human values") Harris talks of science as though it is the source of all the knowledge and wisdom we need to live by. But, says Baggini, science can never tell us what we should value, because when it tells us how things are, we are always left with the question, what ought we to do about it? This is David Humes' famous is-ought argument. So can or should science be directed to humane and ethical ends, as some H4S suggest?

Baggini says science can tell us that X produces more happiness than Y, but it cannot tell us that we ought to do whatever produces the greatest happiness (Jeremy Bentham & John Stuart Mills' Utilitarianism).

***********

Humanists4Science (H4S) Mission is "To promote, within the humanist community, the application of the scientific method to issues of concern to broader society"

H4S Vision is "A world in which important decisions are made by applying the scientific method to evidence rather than according to superstition."

Pinker's Angels

2011-11-03T01:04:00.000-07:00

Steven Pinker is in town. The Harvard Professor of Psychology has a new book to push and in the last three days alone he's spoken at the LSE, the RSA and the Royal Institution.

And that's good because Steven's new book - The Better Angels of our Nature - is important.

In his RI lecture he presented a vast amount of data showing that human violence has declined over thousands of years. Looking at deaths relative to population he traced falling rates of death in war and by private murder. The showed the second half of the 20th century to be a peaceful period - and the first decade of the 21st century to be even more so. These findings will surprise many and shock some - even humanists sometimes forget how bad the past was - but the evidence, from history and archaeology, is overwhelming.

Steven traces the decline in violence before, say, 1700, to the establishment of states, trade and the rule of law. For the last three centuries he also pointed to literacy, printing, the Enlightenment and the 'decline or domestication of religion' as causes. His data suggests at least one further factor - the sheer destructiveness of modern warfare between major states has made those states avoid such warfare - at least with each other.

This is a profoundly optimistic view. It's not optimistic despite the facts but because of them. It holds that things have got better fairly consistently over a long period and that they can continue to get better.

It also a humanist view - ascribing the improvements to the spread of reason, the rule of law and an expanding circle of compassion. And it shows, as H4S believes, that scientific method is applicable to history, politics and even morality.

Steven Pinker. Photograph: Graeme Robertson

British Humanist Association Objects now include Science

2011-10-23T23:17:00.000-07:00

Humanists4Science has actively campaigned, especially since February 2011, for some reference to 'science' be included in the BHA Mission, Vision, Strategy & Aims Statements.

I am pleased to report that the British Humanist Association new charitable Objects reported on October 13 2011 includes the following reference to 'science':-

4.1.2 The advancement of education and in particular the study of and dissemination of knowledge about humanism and about the arts and science as they relate to humanism.

Prior to the new Objects, the BHA made absolutely no mention of science in its 'Vision, Mission or Aims Statements' even though BHA actions and events (eg Darwin Day) clearly acknowledge the importance of science. Is this an example of strategic mismatch? If so, this is a step in the right direction.

Chris Street, Chair, Humanists4Science

Humanism, education, equality and mutual understanding: BHA celebrates its new charitable Objects

Source: http://www.humanism.org.uk/news/view/908
Date: October 13, 2011

Following a long campaign to have the advancement of non-religious beliefs for the public benefit accepted as a charitable Object, the BHA is delighted finally to have achieved this goal and to announce its new charitable objects. The new Objects sit above the BHA’s Aims and although they are – by necessity – written in the sort of legalistic language which is not always the most inspirational, they represent an excellent consolidation of the BHA’s work. The revised Objects are:

4.1.1. The advancement of Humanism, namely a non-religious ethical lifestance the essential elements of which are a commitment to human wellbeing and a reliance on reason, experience and a naturalistic view of the world;

4.1.2. The advancement of education and in particular the study of and the dissemination of knowledge about humanism and about the arts and science as they relate to humanism;

4.1.3. The promotion of equality and non-discrimination and the protection of human rights as defined in international instruments to which the United Kingdom is party, in each case in particular as relates to religion and belief;

4.1.4. The promotion of understanding between people holding religious and non-religious beliefs so as to advance harmonious cooperation in society.

read more about 'The background to the BHA campaign'.

The Religious Moral Compass

2011-08-18T11:23:00.000-07:00

The Religious Moral Compass and it’s tendency to point in the direction the believer is already facing

Believers‘estimates of God’s beliefs are more egocentric than estimates of other people’s beliefs.

Nicholas Epley et al have an interesting piece of research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science Oct 2009 whereby they claim that people are more likely to base their beliefs about what God’s attitudes are towards moral issues by modelling them in an egocentric way on what they already believe rather than on external sources as contrasted with the way in which people base their beliefs on what other people believe.

When we make inferences about what other people believe they are guided by two main sources – knowledge of our own beliefs which we project onto others and knowledge of others belief through their behaviour (verbal or non-verbal), or stereotypes of the groups that they belong to, or what other people tell us about other people’s beliefs. In the case of religious beliefs people do rely on religious texts, and what perceived experts on such texts inform them about what God believes. However such texts also allow room for various interpretations which subjects are able to select from. So there is clearly a two way process at work.

It may be thought that subjects will select whatever interpretation seems most plausible to them and so their beliefs are being guided by the religious texts and how they are best interpreted – in this way it would be thought that God’s presumed beliefs as inferred from the religious texts were being used as a guide for one’s own beliefs. Alternatively it could be that one’s own beliefs are being used as a guide for the sort of beliefs that God would have and people are filtering out different interpretations of what God is presumed to believe depending on what they already believe.

In order to try and tease apart the influence of peoples own beliefs on what they thought God's attitudes were towards moral questions and extrernal sources that informed them about what God's attitudes were towards such questions Epley et al asked subjects to rate their own attitudes to a range of issues such as Abortion, Affirmative Action, Death Penalty, Iraq War, Legalisation of Marijuana, and Same Sex Marriage and then to ask them what they thought two prominent American’s attitudes were towards the same issues (George Bush and Bill Gate) and the Average American. This gave them some level of correlation between their own beliefs, God’s presumed beliefs, and other people’s beliefs.

However, in another study they also manipulated subject’s attitudes about certain moral issues by giving them strong arguments supporting it and weak arguments against it, and again in another study they asked participants to deliver a speech in favour or opposed to the death penalty. Subjects in these two conditions had their attitudes manipulated by these procedures e.g. subjects who had to give a speech that was inconsistent with their prior attitude had their attitudes made more moderate. What was interesting about these studies is that they found that subjects beliefs about God’s beliefs followed in line with their newly manipulated attitudes whilst their beliefs about what other people believed were not affected as much.

Finally Epley et al used fMRI scanning whilst reporting their own attitudes, God’s presumed attitude, and what they thought the average American’s attitude were towards moral issues. They found that thinking about one’s own mental states and thinking about Gods presumed mental states activated the regions associated with egocentric thinking and projection of one’s own mental states onto others much more than thinking about what the average American’s views were on such issues.

They concluded that inferences about God’s beliefs tend to be egocentrically biased and the processes used to generate beliefs about God’s beliefs are relatively similar to the process that we use to generate one’s own beliefs. Whilst believers may acquire the beliefs of the theology of those around them they are also more likely to seek out religious beliefs that most resemble their own. Whilst religion is often taken to be the moral compass that is the ultimate moral authority that guides followers moral beliefs and behaviour this research lends weight to the idea that the religious compass does not point north whichever direction the person is facing but has a tendency to point in whatever direction they are already facing.

http://www.slideshare.net/antoniochavezss/believers-estimates-of-gods-beliefs-are-more-egocentric-than-estimates-of-other-peoples-beliefs-epley-et-al-2009

How Discourse About Homeopathy Was Affected By The 10:23 Campaign: A Case Study In Public Engagement

2011-07-18T00:25:00.000-07:00

David Waldock has published a summary of his Open University s810 MSc project on the 10:23 homoeopathy campaign.

The 10:23 campaign is organised by Manchester Skeptics.

Definitions of Atheism and Self-Deception.

2011-07-10T13:41:00.000-07:00

Atheism: Definitions and Arguments

What is atheism?

Atheism is, as the name suggests, the denial orrejection of theism. For present purposes I will take theism to be the beliefthat the God of sophisticated monotheistic religions exists. The God ofmonotheism is an entity that plays a role in explaining certain features of theobservable world e.g., the existence of the physical universe, why the universeis ordered rather than chaotic, why humans exist.[1]

The standard formulation of atheism comes in two varietiesdepending on whether it stresses the affirmation of the non-existence of God orthe denial or rejection of the existence of God.

The entry on atheism in the Rutledge Encyclopedia ofPhilosophy begins with the stress on the affirmation of the non-existence ofGod.

Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence ofGod. It proposes positive belief rather than mere suspension of disbelief.

However, sometimes atheism is characterized in terms ofthe proposition that is rejected. For instance, the American RutledgeEncyclopedia entry on atheism defines atheism in terms of the rejection ofbelief in God, or someone who thinks that the proposition “God exists”expresses a false state of affairs.

Someone may reject the claim that God exists on groundsthat it is incoherent, and contains logical contradictions, e.g., they mayreject the claim that God is three persons in one, because it is part of ourconcept of a person that no person can be identical with any other person, andso it is incoherent to claim that God is identical to three person (or personlike entities). Similarly they may reject the claim that God is perfect whencoupled with the claim that God needs to be worshipped since a need suggests alack of something whilst perfection suggests that the entity is lacking innothing. Hence someone may reject theclaim that God exists when talking about the typical characterization of theGod of monotheism. In rejecting this claim they are claiming that theproposition expressed by “God exists” is false or cannot be true.[2]

Atheists may also reject the claim that God exists indirectly,by embracing the attitude of naturalism[3] that isreflected in the current scientific world view - the view that events in thenatural world have natural explanations, and that supernatural explanationshave no room to play in explaining the physical universe. Science has notalways adopted the attitude of naturalism. In the past supernatural causes wereaccepted as playing a role in the observable world e.g. the motion of theplanets and there is no essential feature of science that makes it adopt the attitudeof naturalism. It has adopted this attitude because of the past success of naturalcauses and the failure of supernatural causes in explaining features of the observableworld.

Since the God of monotheism is an entity that plays arole in explaining certain features of the observable world e.g., the existenceof the physical universe, why the universe is ordered rather than chaotic, whyhumans exist, (as well as the more outrageous claims such as atheists are responsiblefor global warming) then someone who adopted the attitude that such events wereexplained by natural rather than supernatural causes would be indirectlyrejecting the existence of the God of monotheism. However even though someonewho adopted the attitude of naturalism would believe that all natural eventshave a natural explanation they may not draw the conclusion that God does notexist if they do not see the connections between such beliefs.

The person who believes that the events in theobservable world will have a natural explanation rather than a supernaturalexplanation but fails to draw the conclusion that the God of monotheisticreligions does not exist is like someone who believes that all men are animals,and all animals are mortal, but does not draw the conclusion that all men aremortal.

With the above qualifications in mind, we get somethingvery close to the starting definition:

Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence ofGod, or any view which entails the non-existence of God or gods. It proposespositive belief, rather than mere suspension of disbelief.

Agnosticism – Lack of knowledge.

Atheism is distinct from agnosticism although the twooverlap. Agnosticism is the view that denotes lack of knowledge on theexistence of God (or more widely on any topic), in contrast with Gnosticism,which denotes knowledge of God. It is often coupled with the distinct view that,since God’s existence cannot be proved or disproved, the rational position totake on this topic is simply non-belief, or the suspension of judgment.Agnosticism has traditionally been used to mark a midway point between atheismand theism, which gives the following table.

1 Gnostic Theist: Believes that God exists and claims to knowthat God exists.

2 Agnostic Theism: Believes that God exists but does notknow that God exists.

3 Agnostic Simpliciter: Neither believes nordisbelieves. Does not know God exists or does not.

4 Agnostic Atheist: Believes that God does notexist but does not know God does not exist.

5 Gnostic Atheist: Believes that God does notexist and claims to know that God does not exist.

Atheism as Non-Belief.

However, there is a widespread popular use of 'atheism'that exists amongst many (if not most) atheists that defines atheism as simplythe lack of belief in God. This view isso widespread that it may now be the dominant view in popular culture. As acontributor for The Guardian, Peter Thompson writes that atheism,

…as atheists are keen to point out,says nothing about the atheist's beliefs. It is simply the absence of a beliefin something and does not constitute a belief in its own right.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/oct/04/faith-religion-social-improvement

This view has its own intellectual history goingback to the 1800’s. It is shared by some philosophers who have written onatheism, such as Michael Martin. On this view, the difference between atheismand agnosticism is not in terms of lack of belief, since both views share thatcharacteristic. Instead it has been proposed by J.C.C.Smart that if someone estimates thevarious probabilities of theism being true, on the evidence available to him,then one can rank theism and atheism depending on how likely they think it isthat God exists or does not exist.

On this view, we have the following categories, wheremore than lack of belief is required in order to be an atheist, the person mustalso think that, on the balance of probabilities, it is unlikely that Godexists.

1 Gnostic Theist: Believes that God exists, is certain that Godexists (probability of 1).

2 Agnostic Theism: Believes that God exists, thinks ithighly likely, but is not certain.

3 Agnostic Simpliciter: Neither believes nordisbelieves, and takes it as equally likely that God exists or does not.

4 Agnostic Atheist: Is skeptical thatGod exists, thinks it highly unlikely that God exists, but is not certain.

5 GnosticAtheist Is skeptical that God exists, is certain that God does not exist – probability of0.

Notably in the above definitions of atheism therequirement of believing that God does not exist is absent. From the above we can seethat atheism includes both definitions.

1: The belief that God doe not exist (or whatentails this).

2: The lack of belief in God.

The first claim has been called “positive atheism” or“strong atheism”, and the second has been called “negative atheism” or “weakatheism”. The first of the above claims is the stronger of the two, since itentails the latter. That is to say, if you believe that there are no gods, youshould also lack a belief in any god; otherwise you will have contradictorybeliefs. The second does not entail having any belief about the non-existenceof gods.

This second view is probably best not construed asa claim that cats, dogs, and infants are atheists, or that those completelyignorant of religion are atheists even though these creatures lack the beliefin God. This is because such creatures are not making any judgment about theprobability of whether God exists or not and this latter feature is requiredfor distinguishing atheism from agnosticism simpliciter (the view that God’sexistence and non-existence is equally likely).

What the two views have in common and what marks themout as distinct from agnosticism simpliciter is that both share the view that theGod of monotheism is perceived as being an improbable thing to exist. The core dispute between the two views isover whether the perceived improbability of such a God existing entails thatthe person should believe that such an entity does not exist or whether theperceived improbability of such a God existing entails that one should simplydoubt that such a God existed and suspend belief on the matter.

Given that the central dispute between atheists over thedefinition of atheism involves whether a person should believe God does notexist or suspend belief on the matter it will be worth sketching out an outlineof what beliefs are. In so doing we may belay some confusion.

What are Beliefs?

Since the definitions of atheism involve the term‘belief’, it will be useful to clarify some central notions that surround theconcept of belief. The term "belief" is used in philosophy to referto the attitude we have whenever we take something to be the case. In thissense, the term is used very widely and covers what we may call ‘G. E. Moorebeliefs’. These are the things that we take for granted and feel pretty certainabout during our everyday interaction with the world, such as “I have hands”,“this is a table,” and so forth. The term is also used to cover the morespeculative aspects, such as “God exists”, “Intelligent life on other planetsexists”, and so forth.

Attitude and Content

It is important to distinguish the psychologicalattitude of belief from the content of what is believed. The psychologicalattitude of belief is an autobiographical statement; it tells you about someparticular person’s psychological state. It is typically reported by someonesaying “I believe that God exists”. In contrast, the content of belief iswhat the person takes to be true; it is about an actual or possible state ofaffairs in the world, e.g., “God exists”. To illustrate this distinction,consider a world in which no God exists, and a person who asserts thefollowing:

I believe that God exists.

If we are focusing on the content of what the personbelieves, then we would be focusing on the proposition that God exists. Since,for the sake argument, we are in a world without God, the claim is false. Ifthis were a world in which God existed, the proposition would be true. However,if we are considering the statement as an autobiographical remark about whatthe person believes then, so long as the person is speaking clearly, the claimis true, since that statement reflects what they believe. Confusion can arisewhen people use the above form of expression as ellipsis for the proposition“God exists”, only expressed with some degree of doubt, rather than as anautobiographical remark.

It is important to get clear on the distinctionbetween belief as attitude and belief as content, because some atheists canmistakenly think that, if they reject the claim (belief as content) that Godexists, they have said nothing about whether they believe that God does notexist. They have, since to reject the claim God exists is to represent the worldas if God did not exist. Consider someone who rejects the claim that his son isalive. Someone who rejects this claim is representing his son as being dead,since there is no intermittent state of being between being alive and dead.This is why the phrase,

Idon’t believe that God exists

Is not a good indicator of whether the person rejectsthe claims of the theist or not. Strictly speaking, this tells us nothing aboutwhether the person rejects what the person, who asserts that God exists, claimsto be true. The one lacks a belief that the other one has. Theproblem is further confounded by such phrases as “I don’t believe” beingelliptical for “I think that is false”.

Consider the scenario whereby someone believes thatElvis is not dead and they ask you whether you believe that Elvis is stillalive. You may reply that

Idon’t believe Elvis is still alive

If we take this literally it indicates that you lack thebelief that Elvis is still alive but does not indicate that you think Elvis isdead or that the person who thinks Elvis is still alive has a false belief.However, I think that many people treat the above expression as an ellipsis forthe thought that Elvis is dead in the same way that many people ay treat theexpression “I don’t believe that God exists” as ellipsis for “I believe that Goddoes not exist.”

It is important to note that if you construe the claim“I believe that God exists” as an autobiographical remark, then it isimpossible to reject this claim (think that it is false), without thinking thatthe person is mistaken about what they believe. You cannot reject someoneelse’s autobiographical remark by citing an autobiographical remark of your own,just as you cannot reject my claim that I ate marmalade on toast this morningby citing your skipping breakfast. Similarly to reject the claim that Godexists is not to lack a belief on the matter (which tells us nothing aboutwhether you believe God exists or not) but to think that God does notexist.

However, there is another sense of reject, which is toreject an invitation to share the belief that someone else has, without makingany kind of judgment about whether the belief is true or false. Consider beingasked whether a defendant in court is guilty of a certain crime. We may be invited to consider that the defendent is guilty by the prosecution but reject this invitation. We may also reject the invitation to view the defendent as not guilty. In this sense ofreject, we simply reject what we are being invited to believe. However, in such cases we naturally refuse to believe the defendent is guilty or not guilty when there is insufficient evidence either way so the defendent has an equal chance of being either. This is not the case with atheism - the atheist does not think that God is as equally likely to exist as not exist even on the atheism as a lack of belief model.

The use of "I don't believe that" is often unclear.

These two senses of reject are often confused.

The Arguments for Atheism

As mentioned, agnostics have tended to distancethemselves from atheists on the grounds that agnostics treat religious claimsas being plausible claims that could equally be true or false, like betting ona coin that could land heads or tails, whereas many atheists tend to denigrateagnostics and, in so doing, reveal their belief that the existence of God ishighly unlikely rather then equiprobable. There clearly is a differencebetween someone who regards the existence of God as plausible but is undecidedon the matter (and who does not see themselves as being an atheist), andsomeone who regards the existence of God as utterly implausible and thinks thatpeople should not believe this.

The Tea Pot Analogy

If atheists focus only on perceptible evidence asreasons for belief or disbelief, then they may be led into an uncomfortableposition whereby there are no reasons to believe God exists, or to believe thatGod does not exist. If there is no reason to believe or disbelieve then atheismwill look indistinguishable from agnosticism. On the other hand if atheism isto be distinct from agnosticism some reason is required for claiming that theexistence of God is improbable (more likely to not exist than exist).

An oft used analogy to reject such impartiality, withregards to belief in God, is the tea pot analogy - the idea that belief in Godis analogous to the hypothesis that there is a tea pot that is in orbit betweenEarth and Mars. If the hypothesis is careful to state that tea pot is so smallas to avoid detection by even our most powerful telescopes then the hypothesiswould not be able to be falsified. However even though the assertion could notbe disproved this should not lead us to suspend judgment on the matter. Insteadwe should doubt whether there is such a tea pot in orbit.

Thatis to say, given two hypothesis:

A:There is a tea pot in orbit around the Sun.

B: There is no tea pot in orbit around the Sun.

The latter (B) isvastly more probable than the former and, as such, we should doubt whether A istrue. However in doubting whether A istrue we need not affirm that B is true. We may doubt both but not to the samedegree which is just to say that we think one hypothesis is more likely thanthe other.

Further, since there is no more evidence for there beinga tea pot in orbit around the Sun, than there is for there being a God, weshould similarly doubt the hypothesis that God exists. We may also go on and acceptthe hypothesis that there is no such God if we are strong atheists.

There are important disanalogies between the tea pot andGod – namely that the tea pot is open to potential verification and does notplay a role in explaining anything of significance in the universe. The God oftheism, by contrast, is posited as an explanation of the physical universe andwhy it has the form it has, including containing humans. Since the God oftheism is posited as an explanation for certain features of the natural worldthese features are said to constitute evidence for the existence of the God oftheism. In contrast there is no evidence for the existence of the tea pot sincethe tea pot does not explain any features of the natural world.

However, despite these differences the basic principleremains the same: given two hypothesis, we should reject the most implausibleand accept the most plausible one. That is to say between the competinghypothesis:

A: The features of the natural world x,y,z are bestexplained by a supernatural God.

B: The features of the natural world x,y,z are bestexplained by natural properties.

We should doubt A far more than we should doubt Bbecause B is far more probable than A. That is to say we should all be atheists in the weak sense of the term. Of course if we go on to think that B istrue then we will be entitled to think that A is false with the same degree ofcertainty (unless we are in some degree of doubt about the entailment relation)that we think B is true since the truth of B entails the falsity of A. That is to say we will be strong atheists.

From the above we can see that the strength of atheism increases as does the extent of scientific explanations of the universe.

How Not toArgue for atheism as Non-Belief

Many atheists claim to simply lack a beliefin God rather than actively disbelieve in the existence of God. This is alegitimate position to take when considering a hypothesis that we regard as possibleto be true but unlikely to be true. However those most vocal in arguing thatatheism is a position of non-belief also simultaneously claim that theexistence of God is an outlandish thing to believe in, as outlandish as beliefin fairies or other mythical creatures.

Here is the write Paula Kirby describing such a view:

Atheism is not in itself a belief. Few atheists would be so boldas to declare the existence of any god at all utterly impossible. Atheismis, quite simply, the position that it is absurd to believe in, much lessworship, a deity for which no valid evidence has been presented.

http://thehiberniatimes.com/2011/06/03/atheism-is-the-true-embrace-of reality/

Paula Kirby defends the ‘atheism is not a beliefargument’ on the grounds that:

A: If she cannot be certain that there are no gods, thenshe should not deny, disbelieve, that any such gods exist.

Whilst elsewhere, like many atheists, she thinksthat:

B: It is as absurd to believe that any gods exist as itis to believe in unicorns.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/paula_kirby/2009/11/q_us_catholic_bishops_are.html

Problems

1: These two claim, the suspension of belief, and thebelief that something is outlandish or ridiculous to believe in do not sitcomfortably together. As Julian Baggini observes, if we take some claim to beoutlandish and incredible, we naturally disbelieve such a thing(think that such a claim is false), rather than suspend belief:

Whoseriously claims we should say 'I neither believe nor disbelieve that the Popeis a robot', or 'As to whether or not eating this piece of chocolate will turnme into an elephant I am completely agnostic'. In the absence of any goodreasons to believe these outlandish claims, we rightly disbelieve them, wedon't just suspend judgement. (Baggini very short introduction to atheismp.35)

There are good reasons for thinking that the suspensionof belief is not something that can be brought under the will or consciouscontrol, but instead belief formation is largely an automatic process, i.e.,try believing that there is an elephant in the room, or that other people donot exist, or that there are invisible people living in your coat pocket. Wemay entertain these ideas, but we do not affirm them as true, and such ideas donot guide our lives. If so then belief formation is not something we choose; itis a largely automatic process that depends on what we take to be the case. Ifsomething is highly likely, we believe it to be true and, if it is extremelyunlikely, as in the example of the Pope being a robot, we believe it to befalse.

There is no reason to think that the author, Paula Kirby,or anyone else is capable of suspending judgment on things that they are notabsolutely certain of, e.g., that people read The Hibernia Times or WashingtonPost then we have reason to believe that people can be mistaken about theprinciples that guide how they acquiretheir beliefs. This means that they have the belief that their beliefs areguided by a principle (described in A) when their beliefs are not in factguided by any such principle.

2: Many atheists represent religious belief as analogousto belief in fictional entities, for which there is no evidence of theirexistence. However, the attitude that most people have towards fictionalentities is, as the name suggests, one of disbelief or belief in theirnon-existence. There is evidence to suggest that the attitudes we have tothings is influenced by association such that, if we associate religion withfictional entities, we will think that religion consists of fictional entities,i.e., entities that do not exist. So, far from suspending belief on the matter,such atheists are likely to believe such entities do not exist.

This raises the question:

How can atheists, or anyone else for that matter, bedeceived or mistaken, so that they deny having the (negative) beliefs that theyactually have?

Motivated Misconceptions

When we search for information about the world orourselves, our preferences for what we want the world or ourselves to be likeinfluence where our attention is focused. People tend to be more critical aboutwhat they do not want to believe, and more accepting of information that fitswhat they want to believe. Given that there are a host of advantages toportraying oneself as lacking in belief, it is not surprising that manyatheists like to represent themselves as holding this position, even whenthere is good evidence available that this position does not capture what theybelieve.

1: Avoidance of common characteristics

Atheism has grown in popularity in recent years and, asit has done so, it has taken on something of a group identity that sets itselfas opposed to theism. Whilst it is true to say that atheism is opposed totheism in the strict logical sense – theism is the belief that God exists,whereas atheism denies this or asserts its opposite - modern atheism seems tohave opposed itself to a host of traits that are associated with religiousbelief, but which do not form any essential part of an atheistic worldview.

Theists typically believe in an objective morality thatisbound up with God, believe in souls, and that revelation is a way of knowingabout the world. Such a view is common to the Abrahamic religions. In contrast,atheists are often accused of lacking a belief in objective morality, onlybelieving in physical things, and that science is the only way to know aboutthe world. These things do not logically follow from atheism, and there seemslittle reason why atheists should have these other beliefs, although it appearsthat, among the folk, many do endorse the opposite set of traits from theists. Itmay be that, in wanting to distance themselves from theists, atheists are morelikely to endorse the opposite set of traits that theists endorse.

Two attributes that are commonly associated withreligion are "belief" and "faith". If atheists want todistance themselves from theists, they may be motivated to avoid admitting thattheir position is associated with belief, or any element of faith. One way of maintaininga distinct identity from theists is to deny that they have any of the samecharacteristics, including denying that they have a belief on the question ofGod’s existence.

2 Avoidance of the burden of proof

There are conversational norms whereby a person whoasserts some claim, whether it be that God exists, or whether it is theopposite claim that God does not exist, has accepted the burden of proof toexplain and justify their position. If atheists can pretend that they lack abelief or lack a position on the topic, then they can avoid the burden ofproof. Since atheism is a popular movement, many atheists are likely to beunfamiliar and unskilled in justifying their position. Hence, once would expectthem to be motivated to avoid adopting the burden of proof. The problem withpretending to have no position on this topic is that our behavior often revealswhat we really think, more than our explicit denial of having any beliefs onthe topic.

3: Fear of being seen as dogmatic.

Atheists may not want to assert that God or gods do notexist, or report to others their belief that there are no gods, because theyfear that they will be seen as dogmatic or mistaken. After all, if you assertthat there is no monster under the bed and there turns out to be one after all,you will have been mistaken. However, there is no reason why someone whobelieves that monsters do not exist, given the lack of evidence to date, shouldbe seen as dogmatic if they are willing to change their mind at a later date,when the evidence changes. Not wanting to assert that you believe there are nogods is compatible with believing that there are no gods.

Conclusion

There is a legitimatedistinction between atheism as the belief that God does not exist and the lackof belief in God.

In order for this distinction to capture whatatheists actually believe underpins their lack of belief in God it needs tomake it clear that atheism is accompanied by the belief that the existence ofGod less likely than its existence rather than equiprobable in order todistinguish this from the more neutral agnostic (or agnostic simpliciter)position.

Some atheists who perhapsironically most vigorously defend the atheism as non-belief position may seetheism as being so implausible that they actively disbelief rather than suspendjudgment. That is to say they have the beliefs that they deny having. Furtherthey may also have mistaken beliefs about the way that they acquire and reject beliefs.

There seems little reason for atheists to suspend beliefon matters they see as vastly implausible, as contrasted with rejecting suchclaims as false or mistaken. However, one can reject such claims in anon-dogmatic way. To adopt a non-dogmatic position, all one needs to do isbelieve that God does not exist, coupled with the willingness to change yourmind should the evidence change, or with the acceptance that your belief couldbe mistaken.

[1]Whatis Theism?

Since atheists reject or suspend judgment on theclaims of theists, it will be useful to quickly outline theistic positions withregards to God. Theism is the view that a personal God that transcends thenatural world exists, or exists apart from the natural world. God of themonotheistic religions is commonly characterized as a type of immaterial being,who is the creator of the physical universe and everything in it, along with ahost of other attributes: powerful, good, loving, just etc. This is distinctfrom pantheism, which is sometimes taken as an attitude of awe or reverence fornature (and so indistinguishable from) atheism and, at other times, taken to bethe attributing of mind-like properties to nature as a whole, e.g., aconsciousness of the biosphere which is a view that I shall not discuss here.

Philosopherswho defend theism often claim that the attributes of God are used in ametaphorical, analogical, symbolic or non-literal sense. In contrast,non-philosophers tend to view these attributes of God in literal terms, oftenbeing described as believing in an anthropomorphic God. There are alsodifferences in terms of how creation is understood, for instance, creation canbe understood in a temporal sense in which God is supposed to have made theuniverse, before which it did not exist, and a non-temporal sense in which theuniverse is supposedly dependent on God sustaining it, and molding its form, sothat it is suitable for intelligent life. These two views are often combined,but the latter view is sufficient to avoid the claim that theism is false ifmatter existed for eternity. However, central to the God of monotheism is the belief that asupernatural deity exists and explains (in the sense of is causally responsiblefor) some features of the world, e.g., the existence (or continued existence)of the physical universe, the fine tuning of the cosmological constants, and humanexistence.

[2] Theproposition “God exists is false” has the same truth conditions as theproposition “God does not exist”. Whether these two propositions express thesame thought depends on how thoughts are to be carved up i.e., whether they arecarved up objectively in terms of the state of affairs they denote or whetherthey are carved up subjectively in terms of the attitude that the speaker hastowards them. Depending on which view one takes, one will say that theseexpress the same thought in different ways, or that these express differentthoughts about the same state of affairs.

[3] What isnatural is defined in terms of whatever properties pull their weight in the empirical(natural) sciences. They are the properties that belong to the natural sciencesand belong there because of their role in explaining features of the observableuniverse but they need not themselves be observable.

miscellaneous

Atheism and Etymology

It is sometimes argued by atheists that the etymology ofatheism is from the Greek meaning “without God”. Since the theist believes thatGod exists, the atheist is someone who is without the belief that God exists.This argument has two problems.

The first is that it commits the fallacy of etymology,which is a genetic fallacy that describes someone who claims, erroneously, thatthe historical meaning of a word or phrase tells us what its actual present-daymeaning is or ought to be. This is a linguistic misconception that confuses theorigins of the term’s meaning with its current meaning. For instance, if all weknew about the term was its etymology, we would be very confused as to whatsomeone who ordered Tagliatelle was ordering (little cut ones).

The second is that, we are meant to take the origin of aterm as a guide to its current meaning, and so conclude that atheism means thelack of belief. However we cannot take the term as a guide to its currentmeaning without knowing how the current term is used and whether such usage isaccurate. As I have argued above, those most vocal in arguing that atheism isnon-belief actually have the beliefs they deny having so this actuallyundermines the argument that atheism is the position of non-belief.Nevertheless a case can be made for atheism as the position of non-belief solong as it is coupled by the claim that the existence of God is less likelythan Gods existence and does not stray over into making the existence of Godinto something manifestly implausible.

The You Cannot prove a Negative Argument

There is a popular view that a person cannot prove anegative, by which is meant that you cannot prove that something does notexist. You can only prove what exists. This claim does not stand up to amoment’s scrutiny. For instance, consider someone telling you that you cannotprove that an elephant is not on your head. Clearly they have lost theirmarbles. The reason you can prove a negative, i.e., prove something does notexist, is because the existence of things leaves a trace in the world,e.g., the reason that an elephant has not stepped in my butter is because thebutter is still intact. If an elephant had stepped in my butter, or snuck intomy living room, the world would be altered in a certain way.

However, the non-existence of God may be thought of asmore difficult to prove and it is, for here there is plenty of evidence ofnon-existence, but not the same kind of certainty regarding elephants walkingin your butter. The claims are analogous only in that the existence ofelephants, like the existence of God, is expected to leave certain imprints onthe world. If God created the world so that humans could come into existence,then we would expect that we would be here pretty much straightaway (after all,an omnipotent being cannot fail to bring about what it intends). However,unbeknown to people who were wondering what the origins of the universe andhumans were two thousand years ago, the universe is actually very old, andhuman life is comparatively recent. So the evidence suggests that the universewas not made by an omnipotent being who intended us to come about. And it getsworse; we now know that the sun's energy is expanding, so that life on earthwill eventually be destroyed and this looks like a natural process that allinhabitable planets go through. So, far from the universe appearing made fitfor intelligent life, it looks incredibly hostile to any prolonged existence.This is the footprint in the butter that gives us reason to say that theuniverse was not designed by any omnipotent God for the purpose of intelligentlife. It is not a proof but it is a good reason for rejecting belief in God.

Assumptions and Beliefs

There are differences between what we believe and whatwe assume to be true. For present purposes, this distinction is typicallyinvoked to describe how those testing a hypothesis assume that the hypothesisis true, but are not committed to believing that the hypothesis is true, asevidenced by their continual testing of the hypothesis. Those who invoke thedistinction between what we assume to be true and what we believe to be true,also claim that, when we cease testing, as we have done regarding homeopathiespotency, or regarding fairies and unicorns, we indicate our belief that suchthings are non-existent.

Do you agree or disagree that … we trust too much in science and not enough in religious faith?

2011-07-05T17:28:00.000-07:00

source: 2008 British Attitudes Social Survey http://www.britsocat.com
Question: Do you agree or disagree that … we trust too much in science and not enough in religious faith?

The evidence from 2008 British Attitudes Social Survey indicates that trust in science has increased over the 1998-2008 decade, whilst trust in faith has decreased.

In 1998 18.8% and in 2008 14.8% agreed or strongly agreed that we trust too much in science and not enough in religious faith.
In 1998 46.5% and in 2008 54.8% disagreed or strongly disagreed that we trust too much in science and not enough in religious faith.
In 1998 11.92% and in 2008 19.49% strongly disagreed that we trust too much in science and not enough in religious faith.

a 63% increase in those who strongly disagreed that we trust too much in science and not enough in religious faith.

PZ Myers & Richard Dawkins, London

2011-06-13T00:36:00.000-07:00

source: BHA bulletin 13th June 2011

podcast: http://poddelusion.co.uk/blog/2011/06/10/pz-myers-and-richard-dawkins-in-conversation/

Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/BritishHumanists

Science matters

Last week around 1000 people turned out for our event at the Institute of Education to witness an armchair discussion between author and BHA vice-president Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers, American biology professor and the author of the blockbuster science blog Pharyngula.

This was a rare opportunity in the UK to see two leaders in their field pose questions to each other and informally discuss the topics about which they are so articulate and knowledgeable.

When the conversation turned to what evidence the speakers would need to be able to believe in the existence of a god, we felt like conspirators as Myers suggested that if he were to discover something that seems like a god, the scientist in him would want to cut it up and do research to
test it.

The evening ended on a very positive note, with Dawkins being asked how to ensure that young children are able to fully understand the wonder of biology and how we can ensure that they learn about it and be inspired. The conversation which ensued emphasised that we should ensure that children are able to experience all subjects, find the things that they feel passionate about, and be led by their own curiosity.

The whole talk is available as a podcast via BHA partners The Pod Delusion and footage will be made available via the BHA YouTube channel.

'What science will never know', Reith Lecture 2010 by Martin Rees

2011-06-12T14:41:00.000-07:00

source: Reith Lectures 2010 website - audio 'What we'll never know'.

Robots in outer space, transhumanists - post human era, probes to Mars, one way tickets for humans to the moon?, Giordano Bruno was burned at stake in 1600 for believing that stars are other suns with planets with complex life. How did life start on earth?, More...

Martin Rees says human brains may be limited just like chimps brains who are baffled by Einsteins' work. We may never (23') know about consciousness or a unified theory of physics.

Review of Sam Harris's "The Moral Landscape"

2011-06-06T15:16:00.000-07:00

Review of Sam Harris's "The Moral Landscape"

Sam Harris sets out his goal in the introduction to the Moral Landscape which is to argue that “human knowledge and human values can no longer be kept apart. The world of measurement and the world of meaning must eventually be reconciled. And science and religion—being antithetical ways of thinking about the same reality—will never come to terms.” This is a huge task for such a small book but it is an entertaining introduction to these themes nontheless.

I am going to focus on Harris’s moral view which can be broken down into three components.

A)    A theory of value – this translates into the well being of conscious creatures.

B)    A theory of morality – this translates into actions that that increase the well being of conscious creatures being right and wrong in so far as they diminish them.

C)    A claim about the role of science in morality – this translates into the claim that since the well being of conscious creatures is realized in the brain states of conscious creatures it is amenable to being measured scientifically. As such science can help determine what actions best increase the overall well being and so help determine what actions are right or wrong. *Harris also uses the term “science” more widely to refer to any empirical investigation into the world.

There are a few reviews of Harris that object to the view that science can tell us what sort of things are of value (A) or what sort of actions are right (B). Yet, Harris informs us that the claims of A and B are made on “first principles”. Harris does not point to any scientific results that support A or B. Instead he asks us to imagine a world without any conscious life. In such a world there is little sense to speak of things being better or worse for anything. Such a world appears to lack any value. Once we introduce conscious creatures to this scenario it makes sense to talk about creatures with states of positive and negative value, where things can go better or worse for them. Even the main religious traditions recognize basic human values and use them as motivators for moral behavior e.g. positive (eternal bliss) and negative states (eternal suffering). So with conscious creatures we have a world of value and without them we do not.

If questions about values are questions about the well being of conscious creatures then it seems plausible, at least for many cases, to hold that morally right actions are those that increase what is of value, and morally wrong actions are those that decrease what is of value. Hence it will be right to give a child about to undergo an operation an anaesthetic, wrong to confine animals to factory farms and so forth.

If facts about value are facts about well being then all conscious creatures that can be said to have some kind of well-being or engage in some kind of suffering must have moral standing because they have states of value and disvalue as we do. However, it is important to note that Harris does not treat all conscious creatures as being of equal value and he marks this difference as being due to differences in the capacity for well being and suffering in the different creatures. This much squares with our current understanding of morality.

However, the extent to how well the well being of conscious creatures can be scientifically understood is more difficult. Harris often refers to what the effects of specific laws and social institutions have on human relationships, and the relationship between neurophysiology and happiness and suffering. So the so called ‘soft sciences’ such as psychology and sociology will be involved as much as neuroscience in finding out the conditions that best contribute to the well-being of conscious creatures.

Harris goes on to explain that some of the most important facts about what constitutes well being and what causes well being will be facts that are universal and transcend culture just as facts about physical and mental health are universal and transcend culture. So it would be wrong to put cholera in the water as this would negatively impact not only on people’s health but also on people’s well being and it would be right to eradicate malaria for the same reasons. We can say that climate change is likley to be the greatest threat to human life and so we have a moral duty to take steps to reduce carbon emissions without any need for a divine law giver to make this claim objectiviely true according to this view.

There will also be many different types of right/wrong action, or right and wrong political policies, and ways of organizing social life depending on how they relate to well-being, just as there are many different ways of playing good moves in chess that relate to winning the game. Even so there are still objectively better or worse actions/policies just as there are still better or worse moves to make in a game relative to the overall objective.

The metaphor of the “Moral Landscape” is invoked in order to capture the relationship between morality and well-being. Harris describes this as a space of "real and potential outcomes" whose peaks correspond to the heights of potential well-being for everyone and whose valleys represent the deepest possible suffering for everyone. "Different ways of thinking and behaving—different cultural practices, ethical codes, modes of government, etc.—will translate into movements across this landscape and, therefore, into different degrees of human flourishing."

This view allows for there to be many different peaks and troughs (or variables) that constitute better or worse states of affairs in different societies depending on how they relate to the flourishing of conscious creatures. So some societies may be better in terms of income equity and education opportunities, whist others do better in terms of job opportunities and housing. It is possible for societies to be structured differently in terms of these variables without one being worse than another, but it is still possible to rank these different societies as being better or worse places to live.

However, according to Harris, it is important to maintain that there are objectively better and worse states of affairs or better or worse forms of living arrangements within our own and different societies. In philosophical terms this view makes Harris a ‘moral realist’ since it is whether actions, policies, governments improve the well being of conscious creatures that determine whether it is a right or wrong action not the beliefs of any individual or group of individuals making moral judgments.

Moral realism, moral subjectivism, and moral relativism.

The Moral Landscape aims to give us an account of objective morality that does not require a divine law giver or collapse into moral nihilism, moral subjectivism, or moral relativism. Religious leaders often charge the non-religious with being unable to have any moral values without religion and societies that are undergoing a transition from being predominantly religious to non-religious are said to be living on the cultural capital of the waning religion. Harris thinks there is no need for such pessimism.

On the consequentialist picture that Harris has outlined we should think of right and wrong action (or perhaps better and worse actions) in terms of how they impact on the well being of conscious creatures then this will provide a framework for an objective account of morality. It won’t be objective in the sense of being mind-independent for it relies on the positive and negative states of conscious creatures as the data for what is of value, but it will be objective in the sense that any individual can be mistaken about whether their actions are actually improving the lives of both themselves and others or making them worse off.

Harris illustrates this by asking us to consider Jeffrey Dahmer's idea of a life well lived which consisted in killing young men and having sex with their corpses. We can explain why these actions were not morally good by reference to the simple fact that killing young men did not contribute to their well being, instead it deprived them of all of their future goals and pleasures. We might want to add that if Dahmer’s pleasures are held to have any value then the suffering and lost pleasures of all his victims must also be of value and these will surely outweigh his own bizarre desires. So on consequentialist reasoning he is not contributing to the sum total of well being but detracting from it through acting in this way and hence is actions are wrong. But there is more to this, for Harris holds that moral deviants like psychopaths are often unable to live as fulfilling lives as others. [This incidentally was also true for Dahmer who felt compelled to act in this way even though it made him deeply unhappy].

Whilst few people would be willing to claim that killing and having sex with corpses constitute morally good actions and would feel confident in saying this, Harris notes a peculiar trend in modern western cultures whereby people feel unable to criticize the practices of other cultures even when such practices lead to a loss of well-being. The strange logic of relativism is nicely captured in a passage where Harris quotes the Anthropologist Donald Symons saying:

If only one person in the world held down a terrified, struggling, screaming little girl, cut off her genitals with a septic blade, and sewed her back up, leaving only a tiny hole for urine and menstrual flow, the only question would be whether the death penalty would be a sufficiently severe sanction. But when millions of people do this, instead of the enormity being magnified millions-fold, suddenly it becomes "culture," and thereby magically becomes less, rather than more, horrible..

The puzzle here is to explain why a single act of genital mutilation is deemed wrong, it can be made permissible when large numbers of people engage in the practice, or why it should be considered wrong in one location but permissible in another.The thinking of cultural relativism appears strangely ad hoc or arbitrary, after all how can harming others become right when it is practiced enmass and the harm multiplied?

This is another theme that Harris picks up on during his arguments against relativism. He claims that we are prone to double standards when discussing moral issues as contrasted with when discussing religious or scientific issues. For instance when we are discussing human evolution we do not take the widespread disagreement that is generated by those who hold religious beliefs are a reason for thinking that there is no fact of the matter as to the origins and nature of human evolution. In contrast when there is disagreement from those who hold religious or superstitious beliefs people often take this as a reason for thinking that there is no fact of the matter as to what the right action is and so it seems everyone’s opinion counts equally. Of course this difference is most likely due to a fairly widespread belief that that there is a fact of the matter to be discovered about the origin of humans whereas there is a fairly widespread belief that there is no fact of the matter to be discovered about what actions are right or wrong. Instead we have to invent different moral codes and laws in order to live together. This line of thinking draws us back into relativism and subjective ways of thinking about morality but if we think of morality as an invention that is for some end (ways of living together) then we can talk about morality as being an invention whilst still applying standards that rank the inventions as better or worse.

Every society has institutions and norms that channel behavior in certain ways, to reduce conflict, encourage co-operation, and settle disputes, and it seems plausible to say that there are better or worse ways to do this in terms of how they relate to the well-being of those societies inhabitants. Within different societies there are commonalities. For instance moral justification is not like expressing preferences e.g. I like this, but instead it has to appeal to a set of values that we share in common with others. As such framing morality in terms of the well being of conscious creatures is one of the most impartial ways of doing this that will have widespread appeal. It may be the best of the available options.

Value realism.
Not only is there a form of moral objectivism on the table but Harris presents a form of objectivism about subjective wellbeing. If there are certain courses of action that would better contribute to my own well being than others and it is possible for these to be independent of my beliefs and my present motivation then there will be objective facts about what best contributes to my own subjective well being. On this account it must be possible to value the wrong things i.e. to be mistaken about what is valuable for you. This is because we are not always well placed to know what is in our own interests but also because we may mistakenly rank what we take to be of importance to us in making us happy. For instance Harris claims that we are liable to rank factors such as "wealth, health, age, marital status," as extremely important and so make our most important life decisions on them when such assumptions are inaccurate in terms of how they will impact on our future well being. We are also prone to make mistakes with regard to remembering how bad, previous painful events were and also in predicting how good future events will be (we tend to focus on the event to the exclusion of how events at the periphery affect us. Hence, as Harris muses, "It seems little wonder, therefore, that we are so often unfulfilled."

Criticism of the theory of value (A).

Harris seems to confuse a necessary condition of anything valuing something with the sorts of thing that can be valued in the above. For instance someone in terrible pain with a terminable illness might value non-existence as contrasted with prolonged pain. But a person's non-existence is anything but a form of consciousness or well-being. It might be conceded that a person only finds non-existence valuable in light of their current conscious state of suffering, and so the value of non-existence is derived from these states but even so it would still follow that there is more to value than conscious states or well-being. Further, conscious creatures value truth, but truth can consist in a relationship between our beliefs and the world rather than a form of consciousness. In fact the value of truth can conflict with the value of well-being as some people may prefer to know the truth even if it 'hurts' them.

The concern here is that the well-being of conscious creatures may then be too narrow to capture everything that is of value.

Criticism of consequentialism (B).
The standard criticism of consequentialist thinking is to invoke a scenario whereby the consequences result in an increase in whatever has value but there our intuitions tell us that the action is wrong or that we are not morally obligated to produce such an act. For instance non-consequentialist such as deontologists hold that some acts are right/wrong in themselves, typical examples of such actions include promise breaking, killing innocent people, lying. The idea here is that we should not lie, kill innocent people, or torture anyone. These prohibitions constrain us in what we may do, even in pursuit of good ends.

Consider the practice of water-boarding and torture at Guantanamo Bay (or one could equally consider the practice of unmanned drones over Afghanistan). Many people are kept without trial and subject to torture on the basis of being suspected of being involved in terrorism. Out of these people we can reliably predict that some, perhaps most, will be innocent of any involvement with terrorism. The question then arises whether it is right to maintain such practices with the knowledge that innocent people will be tortured even if such a practice causes a reduction in terrorism.

We also consider ourselves to have special obligations to our friends and family that we do not have with strangers, such that where I have promised to take my friend on holiday, even though I could bring about a greater good (in terms of happiness) by taking someone from a deprived family on holiday, or by giving the money to a charity for third world children I do no wrong in taking my friend on holiday. If consequentialism is right then I have done something wrong each time I spend time and money on my friends instead of those more in need whereas we ordinarily do not think that this is so.

There is likely to be a threshold whereby the consequences of keeping a promise are likely to cause serious suffering to others that it would be wrong to keep the promise and right to break it e.g., I may not turn up to an appointment that I promised to attend because on the way I came across someone at an accident that needed help. But this does not mitigate against the wide spread intuition that some actions are right/wrong not in terms of their consequences but in terms of the types of actions that they are.

Criticism of the role of science
Many reviewers of Harris have criticized the emphasis he puts on science resolving moral problems. It is certainly difficult to see how neuroscience (which is Harris’s specialist field) can play much of a role in determining answers to moral disputes. It is also difficult to see how science in general can play a role in resolving such disputes. Take a classical moral topic like abortion. If I think that abortions are morally wrong and ought not to be made easily accessible because I think the value of future human life outweighs personal preferences and another person thinks that abortions are morally permissible because there is no harm to any conscious human being, how does Harris think that science is, even in principle, going to resolve this dispute? Perhaps we can point to countries with prohibitions on abortions and look at the effects on those people who live in such countries as compared to others but this will likely lead back to the question of whether actions that generate the most happiness are the right actions to take.

Criticism of the role of well-being
Given that the concept of well-being has such a prominent role in Harris’s book it is surprising that there is relatively little analysis of what it consists in. Sometimes it feels like Harris is talking about happiness and when he talks about neuroscience it is the pleasures and pains that we experience that he seems to be talking about. However happiness typically gets broken down into three components:

1: The pleasures and pains that we experience in our life

2: Our happiness at achieving some standard that we set ourselves e.g. not cutting ourselves whilst shaving today, running a marathon, writing a book review.

3: Our overall satisfaction with the way our life is going or has gone.

CF: Happiness: The Science Behind Your Smile, by David Nettle

It is the pleasures and pains that we experience that are amenable to the science of brain scanning, but the other forms of well being would be more amenable to study by the methods of social psychology and permit a far greater variation.

Conclusion
It must be admitted that Harris shovels aside a great many objections to the consequentialist programme that treats moral matters in terms of increasing well being. Is it better to have an aggregate level of well being for everyone or does the total well being even if such well being is distributed unevenly matter more? How reliable are our predictions about the sorts of actions that generate well being? What sort of procedure is available for solving conflicts of interest between radically different sorts of values e.g. truth and autonomy?

On the plus side Harris's goal is to remind us that that science already plays an important role in determining moral issues that reflect our shared values such as how to live longer and healthier. He is calling for this to be extended into other areas that deal with how we organize society. How can we best alleviate homelessness in our own society? Which societies are best to live in and why? These are questions that have answers to in principle even if these questions are difficult to answer at present.

The book is written in Harris's usual witty and sharp style. It is wide ranging, covering topics from the nature of belief, determinism and free-will, the role of religion in morality, and of course moral realism and relativism. It is an introduction to these themes and does not contain the tightest reasoning but it makes up for rigour in terms of its engaging prose. It is also, I feel, broadly correct in its analysis.

.

Simon Blackburn reviews 'The Moral Landscape' by Sam Harris

2011-06-05T03:18:00.000-07:00

source: http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2011/03/blackburn-ethics-without-god-secularism-religion-sam-harris/ via http://www.humanistlife.org.uk/2011/04/sam-harris-interviewed-and-reviewed-by-humanist-philosophers/

My highlights from Simon Blackburn (Vice President BHA) review of Sam Harris book "The Moral Landscape" in Prospect Magazine.

My comments indented in blue italics.

Reference: Sam Harris, The Moral Landscape, 2010, Bantam Press, London (Amazon hardback)

.... tact does not much trouble Sam Harris, a knockabout atheist. He holds that “questions about values—about meaning, morality, and life’s larger purpose—are really questions about the well-being of conscious creatures. Values, therefore, translate into facts that can be scientifically understood.” His idea is that with sufficient knowledge, and generous help from neuroscience, we can learn to gauge “wellbeing” and then it is just a technical question of how to maximise it. Not only religion, but moral philosophy with its dilemmas and conflicts, is unnecessary, now that we can observe and calculate. On the dust-jacket, Richard Dawkins enthusiastically endorses the same triumphalist line.

Is Blackburn setting up Dawkins as a 'straw man'? On the dust jacket of The Moral Landscape, Richard Dawkins, does not say that moral philosophy is unnecessary. What Dawkins actually says is 'I was one of those who had unthinkingly bought into the hectoring myth that science can say nothing about morals. The Moral Landscape has changed all that for me. Moral philosophers, too, will find their world exhilaratingly turned upside down, as they discover a need to learn some neuroscience. As for religion, and the preposterous idea that we need God to be good, nobody wields a sharper bayonet than Sam Harris.' View the debate between Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, (chaired by Stephen Law), April 2011.

It is one thing to say that behaving well requires knowledge. It clearly does, and the more we know about the world the better (and worse) we can behave in it. But it is quite another thing to think of “science” as taking over the entire domain of morality, and that there is a reason that it cannot do so. While it is one thing to know the empirical facts, it is another to select and prioritise and campaign and sacrifice to promote some and diminish others.

Agreed.

The School of Athens by Raffaello Sanzio, 1509,
showing Plato (left) and Aristotle (right).
Click image for source.

Aristotle himself thought that ethics concerned wellbeing. But he appreciated, as Harris does not, the twists and turns involved in that simple sounding idea. According to Aristotle, wellbeing is the state of living well, in favourable relationships with the world around one. My successes and failures, knowledge, social relations, memories, hopes, fears and loves make up my wellbeing. This could not be indexed by a brain scanner, which would be insensitive to the difference between a person in a fool’s paradise, largely deceived about his relations with the world, and a person who has got them right.

Aristotle - Eudaimonia: The wikipedia link says '..well being is attainment of excellence in reason. ..it's active ..Eudaimonia depends on virtue. ..While emphasizing the importance of the rational aspect of the psyche, he does not ignore the importance of other ‘goods’ such as friends, wealth, and power in a life that is eudaimonic. ..He doubts the likelihood of being eudaimonic if one lacks certain external goods such as ‘good birth, good children, and beauty’. ..So, a person who is hideously ugly or has “lost children or good friends through death”, or who is isolated, is unlikely to be eudaimon. In this way, "dumb luck" (chance) can preempt one's attainment of eudaimonia.'

In The Moral Landscape, Introduction note 9, page 195, Sam Harris explains that he relies heavily on philosophers William Casebeer and Owen Flanagan (2007 Kindle book or paperback extract) who have resurrected Aristotle's concept of eudaimonia, but he does not pay any attention to Aristotles' Nichomachean Ethics (complete book here or Kindle book) itself, which Harris relies to much on 'knowing how' rather than on 'knowing that'. For example, knowing that the muslim veil, which is compulsorily worn by women in Afghanistan; immiserates them and leads to a new generation of puritanical, misogynistic men. This minimises well being, therefore is wrong. It's a truth claim, which is either right or wrong, say Harris.

click image for source

Harris’s view of wellbeing is nearer to that of Jeremy Bentham, the founder of utilitarianism, who saw it as a simple balance of pleasure over pain. Perhaps sufficient knowledge of the state of someone’s brain could help to measure this ratio, and it would no doubt be quite high for the citizens in Brave New World. But in spite of Dawkins’s enthusiasm, that does not really help, for if Bentham’s hedonist is in one brain state and Aristotle’s active subject is in another, as no doubt they would be, it is a moral, not an empirical, problem to say which is to be preferred. Even if this were solved, how are we to balance my right to pursue my wellbeing against the demand to help maximise that of everyone? Striving to maximise the sum of human wellbeing is making oneself a servant of the world, and it cannot be science that tells me to do that, nor how to solve the conflict, which was central, for instance, to the utilitarian thinking of Henry Sidgwick. Harris considers none of all this, and thereby joins the prodigious ranks of those whose claim to have transcended philosophy is just an instance of their doing it very badly.

I agree with Simon Blackburn.

Peter Singer: well-being of all
sentient creatures is important

Religionists often try to claim meaning and morality as their own private property. The standard secularist will reply that this is so far from the truth that religion cannot even claim a proper share of them. For example, if religion’s contribution to morality is, at base, a matter of bribing us to behave well for fear of supernatural consequences, then it is only a poor substitute for the real thing—like Kant’s shopkeeper giving the right change only because he was afraid of being caught cheating. Such action may accord with a principle of honesty, but he is not acting from that principle, which is what the properly moral person does. I help my child with his homework because he needs help, not to obey the dictates of a supernatural commandant.

Agreed.

The sophisticated religionist will reply that it is not like this: God’s schedule of rewards and punishments is for teaching purposes, “leading strings” as Kant called them, pulling the child, say, towards concern for the helpless. The end-product is the love of others, and the love of principle and justice. Perhaps so, but in that case religious hopes and terrors have nothing essential to do with the motives of morality, any more than parental admonitions, even if they too were accompanied with threats of hellfire.

With meaning we have the same opposition. Faced with the night sky, Darwin’s entangled bank, or the newborn baby, the secularist’s feelings of awe or wonder are directed where they should be: at the sky, the bank, or the baby. His attention does not stray to thinking about his own soul, or the purposes of providence, although he may entertain thoughts about our small place in the vast deserts of space and time. If someone cannot find meaning in the baby’s smile because it is so small in comparison with the cosmos, or because it is not going to last forever, then he is to be pitied, not admired as especially spiritual.

'Spirituality ' is what Richard Green of AtheismUK calls, a 'weasel word'. Here Green talk at Atheist Ireland conference 2010.

Morality is a natural phenomenon. Its roots lie in our needs and our capacities for sympathetically imagining the feelings of others, for inventing co-operative principles, for being able to take an impersonal view of our own doings. We have what Adam Smith called a “man within the breast” monitoring our feelings and actions in the name of those with whom we live. Imagining their admiration, we feel pride; imagining their anger, guilt, their contempt, shame. In his essay “Disenchantment—Reenchantment” in The Joy of Secularism, the philosopher Charles Taylor says that this does not explain what he calls “strong evaluations,” which are cases in which we feel that there is a truth about the matter, or that in valuing something we are not simply projecting attitude and desire, but are getting something right.

The Grand Canyon: ageless, implacable, indifferent and sublime,
says Simon Blackburn, and more worthy of our admiration than gods (who are man-made!)

The phenomenon is real enough, but it is naturally explicable. Some concerns are nearer to our cores than others. If I prefer strawberry ice cream to chocolate, I would not think less well of you if you prefer the opposite. Nor would I be distressed to learn that one day I might change my mind.

But if we visit the Grand Canyon and I am overawed by its grandeur, while you see it just as a good place for tourist concessions, then I may well think less of you. And if I learn that one day I shall become like you, I would be depressed and ashamed, just as I would if I learned that one day I might lose my love of my children, or my concern for truth. I may voice this by saying that the canyon demands the reaction of wonder. But of course it doesn’t issue any demands— indeed its ageless, implacable, indifferent silence is part of what makes it sublime. It is we who demand these reactions from ourselves and others, and rightly so. Admiring the canyon is better than admiring gods, for they, being human creations, suffer from all kinds of nasty traits, where it does not.

What geeks can learn from gays - Mark Stevenson argues for intolerance of pseudoscience

2011-06-04T01:21:00.000-07:00

source: http://www.britishscienceassociation.org/NR/rdonlyres/5FD4C976-DC28-441B-A29F-0F5700D980A5/0/OpenspaceandSTEMinparliment.pdf

In the British Science Association, June 2011 issue of 'People & Science', Mark Stevenson argues for intolerance of pseudoscience citing John Beddington, Government Chief Scientific Advisor, remarks '‘We are grossly intolerant, and properly so, of racism. We are grossly intolerant, and properly so, of people who [are] antihomosexuality... We are not – and I genuinely think we should think about how we do this – grossly intolerant of pseudo-science, the building up of what purports to be science by the cherry-picking of the facts and the failure to use scientific evidence and the failure to use scientific method.’ (source: bengoldacre blog).

'You don’t have to be gay to care that society enshrines equal rights regardless of sexuality, and you don’t have to do science to be concerned that our society is evidence-based.'

Selective use of science should be on a par with racism or homophobia

2011-06-03T00:39:00.000-07:00

source: http://bengoldacre.posterous.com/beddington-goes-to-war-against-bad-science via British Science Association June 2011, 'What geeks can learn from gays' by Mark Stevenson, who argues for intolerance!

... to be continued....

How Discourse About Homeopathy Was Affected By The 10:23 Campaign: A Case Study In Public Engagement by David Waldock

2011-06-01T00:30:00.000-07:00

source: http://davidwaldock.wordpress.com/2011/01/22/how-discourse-about-homeopathy-was-affected-by-the-1023-campaign-a-case-study-in-public-engagement/

Abstract

A campaign led by skeptical amateurs aimed to change the way the public thinks about homeopathy by participating in a mass “overdose” event. Mainstream press media, blogs and tweets from timeframes around that event were analysed to identify how the campaign, plus other events, changed public discourse on homeopathy.

It is noted that there was a shift from technical discourse to political discourse calling for changes in public policy on homeopathy. I conclude that skeptics have great potential to act as agents for citizen engagement with science, but that professional support is essential for pro-am programs to be effective.

What is a Sceptic? David Waldock

2011-06-01T00:07:00.000-07:00

source: http://davidwaldock.wordpress.com/2011/05/01/what-is-a-skeptic-and-am-i-one-part-1-defining-skepticism/

Analysis by David Waldock of what a skeptic is.

BIS/Ipsos MORI: Learning From Public Attitudes to Science 2011

2011-06-01T00:03:00.000-07:00

Home Page || Full Report (pdf) - Public Attitudes to Science || Tables || PAS BlogBIS/Ipsos MORI: Learning From Public Attitudes to Science 2011

View more presentations from Marilyn Booth

Transcription here: http://www.slideshare.net/marilyneb/bisipsos-mori-learning-from-public-attitudes-to-science-2011

Slide 32) The Concerned

Characteristics

Religion tends to play more important role in their lives

Have strong views on the limitations of science and less convinced about the economic benefits of investing in it

Reservations about the intentions of scientists and whether the Government can control them

Around one in four (23%) of the population

Tend to be women aged 16-24 , less affluent (C2DEs) and from BME communities

Implications

Want to hear more about the intentions of scientists, especially those working in controversial areas such as stem cell research or synthetic biology

Want to know how individual scientists and scientific professional bodies , as well as Government, are responding to the public’s concerns

Most engaged Least engaged CONFIDENT ENGAGERS DISTRUSTFUL ENGAGERS LATE ADOPTERS CONCERNED DISENGAGED SCEPTICS INDIFFERENT

Slide 38: From the qualitative work… Participants didn’t know the process of doing science – how funding works and how science gets out into the world… … but they loved talking to scientists!

Slide 21: The kind of formalised process people want to see is often in place, but not known about If I knew that the findings had been formally reviewed by other scientists If I heard the same thing from a number of different sources If they had been published in a scientific journal If they fitted in with other things I know already If I could see the original study for myself If I saw them on a TV programme If the research had been done in the UK If I read them in a broadsheet newspaper If I had heard of the place where the research was done If I saw them on the internet Q Which of these, if any, would make you more likely to believe the findings of scientific studies? Base: 2,103 UK adults aged 16+ Fieldwork dates: 11 October-19 December 2010 Top ten mentions

This suggests to me that Process of Peer Review should be better understood by humanists

2011 Edge Question, The Mediocrity Principle, PZ Myers

2011-05-30T09:52:00.000-07:00

PZ Myers will be in London 8th June 2011, giving a talk organised by Atheism-UK.

http://www.edge.org/q2011/q11_12.html#myerspz

P.Z. MYERS Biologist, University of Minnesota; blogger, Pharyngula

The Mediocrity Principle

As someone who just spent a term teaching freshman introductory biology, and will be doing it again in the coming months, I have to say that the first thing that leapt to my mind as an essential skill everyone should have was algebra. And elementary probability and statistics.

...

What idea should people grasp to better understand their place in the universe?

I'm going to recommend the mediocrity principle. It's fundamental to science, and it's also one of the most contentious, difficult concepts for many people to grasp — and opposition to the mediocrity principle is one of the major linchpins of religion and creationism and jingoism and failed social policies. There are a lot of cognitive ills that would be neatly wrapped up and easily disposed of if only everyone understood this one simple idea.

The mediocrity principle simply states that you aren't special. The universe does not revolve around you, this planet isn't privileged in any unique way, your country is not the perfect product of divine destiny, your existence isn't the product of directed, intentional fate, and that tuna sandwich you had for lunch was not plotting to give you indigestion.

Most of what happens in the world is just a consequence of natural, universal laws — laws that apply everywhere and to everything, with no special exemptions or amplifications for your benefit — given variety by the input of chance. Everything that you as a human being consider cosmically important is an accident.

...

The stars themselves form as a result of the properties of atoms, the specific features of each star set by the chance distribution of ripples of condensation through clouds of dust and gas. Our sun wasn't required to be where it is, with the luminosity it has — it just happens to be there, and our existence follows from this opportunity.

Our species itself is partly shaped by the force of our environment through selection, and partly by fluctuations of chance. If humans had gone extinct 100,000 years ago, the world would go on turning, life would go on thriving, and some other species would be prospering in our place — and most likely not by following the same intelligence-driven technological path we did.

And if you understand the mediocrity principle, that's OK.

The reason this is so essential to science is that it's the beginning of understanding how we came to be here and how everything works.

We look for general principles that apply to the universe as a whole first, and those explain much of the story; and then we look for the quirks and exceptions that led to the details. It's a strategy that succeeds and is useful in gaining a deeper knowledge.

Starting with a presumption that a subject of interest represents a violation of the properties of the universe, that it was poofed uniquely into existence with a specific purpose, and that the conditions of its existence can no longer apply, means that you have leapt to an unfounded and unusual explanation with no legitimate reason.

What the mediocrity principle tells us is that our state is not the product of intent, that the universe lacks both malice and benevolence, but that everything does follow rules — and that grasping those rules should be the goal of science.

2011 Edqe Question: Perhaps we can learn from failures in business, science or life.

2011-05-30T09:36:00.000-07:00

Perhaps we can learn from failures in business, science or life. Kevin Kelly explains how: http://www.edge.org/q2011/q11_6.html#kelly

KEVIN KELLY
Editor-At-Large, Wired; Author, What Technology Wants

The Virtues of Negative Results

We can learn nearly as much from an experiment that does not work as from one that does. Failure is not something to be avoided but rather something to be cultivated. That's a lesson from science that benefits not only laboratory research, but design, sport, engineering, art, entrepreneurship, and even daily life itself.

All creative avenues yield the maximum when failures are embraced. A great graphic designer will generate lots of ideas knowing that most will be aborted. A great dancer realizes most new moves will not succeed. Ditto for any architect, electrical engineer, sculptor, marathoner, startup maven, or microbiologist.

What is science, after all, but a way to learn from things that don't work rather than just those that do? What this tool suggests is that you should aim for success while being prepared to learn from a series of failures. More so, you should carefully but deliberately press your successful investigations or accomplishments to the point that they break, flop, stall, crash, or fail.

...

Science itself is learning how to better exploit negative results.

...

increasingly published negative results (which include experiments that succeed in showing no effects) are becoming another essential tool in the scientific method.

...

one way to troubleshoot a complicated device that is broken is to deliberately force negative results (temporary breaks) in its multiple functions in order to locate the actual disfunction.

...

the habit of embracing negative results is one of the most essential tricks to gaining success.

'We can tell stories about 'Scientific concepts that illuminate the world'.'

2011-05-28T03:24:00.000-07:00

crabsallover says Scientific Concepts (see The Edge 2011 question) are broader than Scientific Method

Edge says 'The term 'scientific' is to be understood in a broad sense as the most reliable way of gaining knowledge about anything, whether it be the human spirit, the role of great people in history, or the structure of DNA. A "scientific concept" may come from philosophy, logic, economics, jurisprudence, or other analytic enterprises, as long as it is a rigorous conceptual tool that may be summed up succinctly (or "in a phrase") but has broad application to understanding the world'

'We can tell stories about 'Scientific concepts that illuminate the world'.'

Humanists4Science (H4S) Mission is "To promote, within the humanist community, the application of the scientific method to issues of concern to broader society."

One way to promote scientific method & scientific concepts is ... by telling stories!

source: http://scienceblogs.com/universe/2011/05/on_science_communication.php
Posted on: May 27, 2011 10:40 AM, by Claire L. Evans

Claire L. Evans writes...
Science communication is difficult.

'It can be crippled by the complexity of its own subject matter. It can be steeped in jargon, too dense for its readership, or, conversely, too simplistic to satisfy its critics in the scientific community. It can lack warmth, or be too paranoid about its empirical rigor to engage in the metaphoric flights -- the quick shifts from microcosm to macrocosm -- that cue readers to an emotional engagement in any subject. The problem may lie in an inescapable tautology: to fully understand a scientific, taxonomic, objective conception of the natural world is to be so steeped in scientific idiom that poetics become impossible.'

Claire Evans continues ... 'And yet, there are those who are capable of communicating the invisible phenomena of science to the public. These people are essentially bilingual. The Sagans, the deGrasse Tysons, the E.O Wilsons; Angier, Attenborough, Carson and Greene; the radio producers, writers, filmmakers, documentarians, and public speakers; these are our human bridges, our storytellers, fluent in both big and small. It's a specific skill, to be a gifted science communicator -- that rare person who can straddle two divergent worlds without slipping into the void between the so-called "Two Cultures," someone with hard facts in their mind and literary gems in their rhetoric.

They must accomplish the humanization of abstract ideas without pandering, make science poetry without kitsch. Even at their best, they can be silly -- think of Carl Sagan, in his burgundy turtleneck, proclaiming, "in order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe." It may seem absurd to draw such a huge subject down to Earth in such a literal way, but what Sagan taps into is the necessity of these seemingly silly flourishes.'

'See, science is big. It's driven by the desire to understand everything! The immensity of such a project necessitates that science be undertaken not by one group of men and women in one time, but all men and women for all time.'

Babushka Dolls: http://weareallinthegutterbut.blogspot.com/2011/05/alphabet-love-b.html via http://nothisnothat.blogg.se/category/allmant.html

'The final goal always eludes us: to understand this, we must first understand this, but to understand that, we must understand this, ad infinitum. Scientific knowledge is won by climbing the shoulders of giants; but these giants are a never-ending stack of babushka dolls. In fact, the very notion of there being a final point in science has become so abstract as to be almost irrelevant; the more we know, the more we know that we do not know, and the end of the game is nowhere to be seen. And, perhaps, there is no end game.'

'To a scientist, this endless narrative satisfies. The balance of properties and theories that define the natural world, the physical Universe, or the underpinnings of mathematical reality are elegant and stirring; knowledge, and the search for more of it, is a raison d'être. For those of us not wired the same way, the greater narrative of science can be overwhelming, if not inscrutable. We need stories with beginnings, middles, and ends. We need things to relate to, objects to hold onto, characters to laugh and cry with. We need to synthesize abstract ideas through allegories, metaphors, and images.'

'Popular science communication is defined by such literary gestures.'

'For years, students of astronomy struggled with the concept of an expanding universe without a center (a notion which violently bucks against reason). Cosmologists, however, came up with an image -- a metaphor -- which lightens the load: imagine that the universe is an expanding balloon, and the stars and objects in space are dots drawn on the surface of this balloon.'

Claire L. Evans continues 'From any one star's vantage point, all the other objects in space are moving away from it, but without any perceivable pattern. The more distant points would appear to be moving faster. Apart from being a devastatingly simple image that conveys more information that entire astronomy textbooks, it's also an elegant metaphor. It accomplishes the same things as the most successful of literary metaphors: a world of feeling and information, the very chaos of physical reality, in one image. It translates profound abstraction (the universe) into something we can imagine holding in our hands (a balloon).'

'Good science communication moulds complex ideas into human-scale stories. It turns a discussion of the cosmos' impossible scale into inflating balloons. Or into Sagan, sitting at his dinner table like a medieval king in corduroy, a steaming apple pie at the ready.'

2011 : WHAT SCIENTIFIC CONCEPT WOULD IMPROVE EVERYBODY'S COGNITIVE TOOLKIT?

2011-05-22T23:33:00.000-07:00

Source: The Edge Question 2011

WHAT SCIENTIFIC CONCEPT WOULD IMPROVE EVERYBODY'S COGNITIVE TOOLKIT?

The term 'scientific"is to be understood in a broad sense as the most reliable way of gaining knowledge about anything, whether it be the human spirit, the role of great people in history, or the structure of DNA. A "scientific concept" may come from philosophy, logic, economics, jurisprudence, or other analytic enterprises, as long as it is a rigorous conceptual tool that may be summed up succinctly (or "in a phrase") but has broad application to understanding the world.

[Thanks to Steven Pinker for suggesting this year's Edge Question]

That's the question asked by this year by Edge. With 159 answers to the question, I set out to find which scientific concepts were most useful to me. Here is my pick which are mostly related to scientific method. Clicking the link opens the article (and asks if you want to print).

The Double-Blind Control Experiment

Richard Dawkins :

Evolutionary Biologist; Emeritus Professor of the Public Understanding of Science,...

A Statistically Significant Difference in Understanding the Scientific Process

Diane F. Halpern

Professor, Claremont McKenna College; Past-president, American Psychological...

Everyday Apophenia

David Pizarro :

Psychologist, Cornell University

People tend to recognise a pattern where a pattern doesn't really exist. Recognising that this Apophenia occurs often, could help us to overcome our bias to recognise patterns where they don't exist.

Cognitive Humility

Gary Marcus

Cognitive Scientist; Author, Kluge: The Haphazard Evolution of the Human Mind...

'Confirmation bias' often misleads.

Uncalculated Risk

Antony Garrett Lisi :

theoretical physicist

we don't understand risk.

"We humans are terrible at dealing with probability. We are not merely bad at it, but seem hardwired to be incompetent, in spite of the fact that we encounter innumerable circumstances every day which depend on accurate probabilistic calculations for our wellbeing. "

Information Flow

David Dalrymple :

Researcher, MIT Mind Machine Project

The concept of cause and effect is better understood as the flow of information between two connected events, from the earlier event to the later one. Saying "A causes B" sounds precise, but is actually very vague. I would specify much more by saying "with the information that A has happened, I can compute with almost total confidence* that B will happen." The latter rules out the possibility that other factors could prevent B even if A does happen, but allows the possibility that other factors could cause B even if A doesn't happen.

Enemies of science

2011-05-10T09:49:00.000-07:00

Last night (May 9th) Prof Richard Evans gave the annual Sense About Science lecture. Prof Evans, a historian, is the first non-scientist to give this lecture.

Prof Evans told the stories of six epidemics, four of cholera plus AIDS in South Africa and BSE in the UK. The stories were fascinating and appalling. (The full lecture will be available as a Guardian podcast so you can see for yourself.) They were also relevant to H4S’s vision: "A world in which important decisions are made by applying the scientific method to evidence rather than according to superstition."

Evans showed that the first three cholera epidemics occurred because the relevant governments did not act on the best scientific advice. All occurred after Dr John Snow had stopped an epidemic by removing the handle of the Broad Street pump and after Bazalgette had built the London sewers. The science was clear. The folly of rejecting science was also apparent in South Africa’s AIDS epidemic; M’beki’s denial that HIV causes AIDS blocked both mitigation measures and the use of effective therapies.

Nothing so far will surprise any member of H4S. But the reasons for the rejection of the science were also interesting. In general the issue was not ignorance of the science but explicit rejection. Before the epidemic the rulers of Hamburg rejected the science because they did not want to invest in public health measures that might have prevented the epidemic. Once it had started they rejected the science because it implied the need to close the port and thus loose money. And they were able to reject the science because Hamburg was not a democracy, had no tradition of independent advice on public health and because they were willing to use lethal force to enforce their views. The epidemics in Russia and Naples showed similar patterns.

M’beki, by contrast, rejected the science because he saw it as a Western conspiracy based on stereotypes about black sexuality. (And also, I think, because the anti-retroviral drugs would have been very expensive.)

A similar issue, excessive respect for farmers’ financial interest, also affected the UK’s response to BSE though with less disastrous results.

What this says to me is that though superstition is an enemy of science it is far from the only one. Vested interests, authoritarian politics and belief in conspiracy theories are also potent enemies.

Richard Dawkins answers questions about science and religion

2011-05-07T02:55:00.000-07:00

Here are all the questions asked (in reverse order); note the timing of the question you are interested in, then listen to Dawkins fascinating answers (click above).

'On Being' by Peter Atkins - Prologue (review - part 1)

2011-05-05T06:18:00.000-07:00

BHA Distinguished Supporter, Peter Atkins book 'On Being' - 'A scientist's exploration of the great questions of existence', was published in March 2011. View Peter Atkins talking (2 minutes) about his book. Atkins will discuss his book at the BHA Manchester conference 17-19th June 2011.

The 111 page book has 7 sections:

Prologue

the scientific method and its limitations.
the role of maths.
everything in the universe is physical, nothing is 'spiritual'.
shedding myths.
near-spiritual joy and wonder about the universe.

Beginning

Where did the Universe come from?
How was something come from nothing, without an agent
Scientific Method
Multiverse
Science v Religion
Why a Universe?
A Universe without a purpose

Progression
Birth
Death
Ending
Epilogue

Prologue

the scientific method and its limitations.
the role of maths.
everything in the universe is physical, nothing is 'spiritual'.
shedding myths.
near-spiritual joy and wonder about the universe.

The Limitations of the Scientific Method
Peter Atkins says that the scientific method:-

'can shed light on every and any concept', ... 'can elucidate love, hope and charity' and 'can elucidate those great inspirations to human achievement, the seven deadly sins of pride, envy, anger, greed, sloth, gluttony and lust' (pg. vii).

Atkins focuses on examples of the scientific method that:-

'illuminate matters of great human concern' (pg. viii) and considers that 'there is nothing that the scientific method cannot illuminate. Because the scientific method has not yet encountered a barrier, ... 'the reach of its beam is boundless and in particular that it can replace (or can conceivably confirm) the myths that surround all the great questions of being' whilst 'aware that extrapolation from present success is not a convincing argument'. (pg. x)

Atkins believes there is no reliable evidence for the 'kingdom of the spirit' and asks:-

'why should anything remain obscure?... we see no objective evidence for the non-physical.' Although many people yearn for a spiritual domain, 'reliable knowledge is not secured by majority vote'.

Atkins writes, whilst 'certain matters are private, subjective and internal', neuroscience and psychology can 'reveal aspects of the brain's beliefs and sentiments and why they dwell there' (pg xi). Only the physical world exists; the spiritual world is a delusion of the mind. 'If absolutely and unreservedly everything is an aspect of the physical, material world then I don't see how it [subjective privacy] can be closed to scientific investigation' (pg. xii).

Can science illuminate all the great real questions?

Atkins writes 'In the physical sciences, Aristotle gave way to Galileo, Galileo to Newton, Newton to Einstein, and Einstein to who knows. Much of scientific understanding, it is claimed, is may-fly ephemeral, awaiting further elaboration or even replacement, so how can I justifiably claim that science has power to illuminate the great questions once and for all?' (pg. xii)

He answers this question, explaining that some observations are unlikely to be overthrown.

'I do and I don't. Where my account is a review of observation, as in the organic processes accompanying birth and death, then there is little force in the view that those observations will be overthrown. Of course they will be elaborated, but the general details and broad features of what I describe are objective, eternal observables, not transient theories.'

Some ideas at the edge of physics will be changed out of all recognition.

'Where, however, my account is a review of theoretical understanding at the edge of physics, then I fully accept that the account is likely to be changed out of all recognition as our understanding of physical reality and cosmology is developed and refined. But my review in these cases will make it clear that our current theories are way-points on the road to presumed complete understanding, showing how far we have come from myth, not concealing that we might have far to go, yet hoping not to quench the sense of optimism that the journey will ultimately be triumphant.'

Some intermediate comprehensions are almost certainly correct but are undergoing elaboration.

'Lying between these extremes of confidence and speculative, extrapolated, and currently unfulfilled optimism, are comprehensions of an intermediate kind, such as my account of the origin of the species. These intermediate comprehensions are almost certainly correct but are undergoing elaboration - with elaboration not to be interpreted as overthrow but enrichment.'

The scientific method is the only means of discovering the nature of reality says Atkins.

'In short, I stand by my claim that the scientific method is the only means of discovering the nature of reality, and although its current views are open to revision, the approach, making observations and comparing notes, will forever survive as the only way acquiring reliable knowledge.'

Does Science Support Belief In God? - CFI, London. Swinburne vs Philipse

2011-04-28T07:01:00.000-07:00

What: Does Science Support Belief In God? - CFI, London. Swinburne vs Philipse
Date: Tuesday May 10th, 7-9pm.
Humanists4Science has added a Meetup. Full Details on CFI UK website.

Stephen Law sympathises with the view that 'science' should be be explicitly mentioned in the BHA Strategy

2011-04-19T17:29:00.000-07:00

Prof. Peter Atkins is a Distinguished Supporter of the British Humanist Association (BHA). Dr Stephen Law is a member of the BHA Philosophers Group. The BHA Strategy (2010) comprises the Vision, Mission, Values and Aims (accessed: 20th April 2011).

This is the 6th of 6 videos recording a discussion, 'Can science alone answer our questions?' between Stephen Law and Peter Atkins at Think Week, Oxford on 24th February 2011. View all 6 parts of the discussion.

In answer to my question, Stephen Law sympathises with the view that 'science' should be explicitly mentioned in the BHA Strategy.

Read a verbatim translation of his answer to my question, below the video.

Part 6: The verbatim transcription of my question follows.
My explanation in brackets ( ):-

1'30": Chris Street (anonymously) 'This is a question for both our speakers, Peter Atkins and Steven Law, who are both distinguished supporters of the British Humanist Association (BHA). Has science any role to play in humanistic philosophy and do you agree that the BHA strategy does not include science?'

1' 50": Peter Atkins 'Stephen this is your question'.

1' 55": Stephen Law 'Sorry just say the last bit again'

2'00": Chris Street 'Do you agree that the BHA strategy does not include any reference to science?

2'04": Stephen Law 'Strategy? Would it be right if the strategy did include science? What did you have in mind? Well give me an example.'

2'10": Chris Street 'I have in mind that the BHA strategy claims that reason has a part in understanding the world'. (the BHA Vision states "we want non-religious people to be confident in living ethical and fulfilling lives on the basis of reason and humanity.")

2'21": Stephen Law 'Right. That is (reason) is a big umbrella word'. My guess is that reason is understood to encompass science, that would be how I would read that. If you feel that it (science) really should have its own word in there explicitly, well, I have a little bit of sympathy with that actually, yes.'

2'40": Chris Street (agrees)

2'42": Stephen Law 'But the suggestion that the BHA is a closet anti-science organisation, doesn't rate philosophy and doesn't rate science, I'm absolutely sure that that is not true. I'm sure you don't think that either?'

2'56": Chris Street 'I don't, no I don't.' (I think BHA is pro science & pro philosophy)

BHA Strategy - Vision, Mission, Values and Aims.

2011-04-19T16:59:00.000-07:00

The BHA Strategy (2010) comprises the Vision, Mission, Values and Aims (accessed: 20th April 2011) -

The BHA "Vision" - What do we want?

"We want a world where everyone lives cooperatively on the basis of shared human values and respect for human rights. We want non-religious people to be confident in living ethical and fulfilling lives on the basis of reason and humanity."

The BHA "Mission" - What do we do?

"We promote Humanism, represent the non-religious, and support those who wish to live humanist lives, including through the provision of humanist ceremonies.

We campaign for a secular state, challenge religious privilege, and promote equal treatment in law and policy of everyone regardless of religion or belief.

We offer a humanist perspective in public debate, drawing on contemporary humanist thought and the worldwide humanist tradition."

BHA Values

In all our work, we strive to embody our values by:

engaging in debate rationally, intelligently and with attention to evidence
recognising the dignity of individuals and treating them with fairness and respect
respecting and promoting freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law;
being cooperative, working with others of different beliefs for the common good;
celebrating human achievement, progress and potential.

BHA Aims

Our Aims - We aim to achieve a situation where:

Humanism is understood as an ethical and fulfilling non-religious lifestance involving a naturalistic view of the universe.

Using all suitable means, including events, courses, publications, online resources, teaching materials and speakers for schools and colleges, the press, broadcast, online and social media, we will maintain an extensive promotional and educational programme to extend and deepen public understanding of Humanism.

People with humanist beliefs and values are supported in identifying themselves as humanists and in expressing those beliefs and values in their lives.

We will articulate Humanism and humanist views in a way that helps people with a humanist outlook identify themselves as humanists, provide opportunities for humanists to develop their own thinking individually and in community with fellow humanists, and strive to establish contact with all who share our values. We will maintain a network of celebrants to enable non-religious people to mark or celebrate significant moments in life and we will consider providing other forms of support for humanists, especially in situations where religious people have support not accessible to humanists.

Public debate and policy are shaped by humanist perspectives.

By recruiting high profile advocates, publishing research and articulating humanist views ourselves, we will promote humanist views on public ethical issues. We will focus on those issues that are either important to humanists in particular or have high social importance, especially where others are actively promoting views opposed to humanist values or the humanist voice is excluded or weak. We will encourage all our members and supporters to increase their engagement with public affairs, working with us and in cooperation with others.

The UK is a secular state guaranteeing human rights, with no privilege or discrimination on grounds of religion or belief.

We will work to enhance the public understanding and appreciation of secularism. We will identify and publicise key instances where people are unfairly privileged or discriminated against because of their religion or belief or where principles of human rights or equality are compromised. We will engage in effective advocacy to influence public opinion, government policy, legislation, and case law and in order to resolve these situations.

We are an expanding, financially healthy and sustainable organisation with high standards of governance and management.

We will build an engaged constituency of the non-religious to create sustainable growth founded on a regular programme of activities and campaigns in which our supporters and members participate as donors, volunteers, celebrants or campaigners to help achieve our objectives. As many of these activities as possible will be financially self-sufficient. We will regularly review all our people’s skills, our organisational structure and our procedures to maintain high standards and ensure they fit the requirements of our current and planned activities.

We are respected as an organization for our expertise and professionalism and recognized as the national voice of Humanism and a leading national voice for the non-religious and for secularism.

We will maintain good relationships with all our stakeholders and audiences and work in coalitions with others whenever possible. We will maintain a responsive and proactive communications function, based on a clear communications strategy and using the most appropriate media. We will aspire always to work to the highest standards and in accordance with our values, to respond seriously to any criticism, and to keep ourselves under critical review to ensure that our high reputation is maintained and improved.

BBC - Everything and Nothing - Jim Al-Khalili

2011-04-17T05:33:00.000-07:00

BBC - Everything and Nothing - Nothing

From BBC: 'Two-part documentary which deals with two of the deepest questions there are - what is everything, and what is nothing?

In two epic, surreal and mind-expanding films, Professor Jim Al-Khalili searches for an answer to these questions as he explores the true size and shape of the universe and delves into the amazing science behind apparent nothingness.

Everything

Summary

if our sun was a grain of sand, there are more stars in the universe, than all the grains of sand, on all the beeches on our world 1'
if static infinite universe all night sky would be bright (olbers paradox)10'
nebullae are other galaxies 17'

stellar parallax
Hubble - nearest galaxy is Andromeda 2.5M light years 26'

contains a trillion stars

non-euclidian geometry

Gauss, Reimann, einstein

expanding universe 45'

hubble blue / red shifts 46'
fabric of space in between galaxies is expanding 47'
einstein 'cosmological constant was biggest mistake'
big bang 47'

flash of light from big bang fills universe - CMB - see on TV 49'
fossilised light of the first dawn 13.7 billion years old 51'

why it gets dark at night 52'

universe is not infinitely old

dark energy origin of expansion of universe 57'

Nothing

The second part, Nothing, explores science at the very limits of human perception, where we now understand the deepest mysteries of the universe lie. Jim sets out to answer one very simple question - what is nothing? His journey ends with perhaps the most profound insight about reality that humanity has ever made. Everything came from nothing. The quantum world of the super-small shaped the vast universe we inhabit today, and Jim can prove it.'

Summary of Part 2, Nothing

what is nothing?

emptiness is what most of the universe is made up of

void or vacuum

14 billions years ago the universe appeared out of nothing 3'
Aristotle

nothingness was paradoxical, 'nature abhors a vacuum'
Torricelli experimented and showed Aristotle was wrong - he created empty space, atmosphere has a specific weight 5'

we live at the bottom of an ocean of air
Blaise Pascal - nothing is everywhere - 10'

a vacuum is natures default state
light travels through a vacuum (but not sound which is carried by air) - 11'

light must be carried by luminiferous 'ether' - 12'

Albert Michelson - measured speed of light

speed of light should differ if ether exists - 15'

Michelson & Edward Morley - speed of light is constant

Albert Einstein

ether does not exist - 20'

TV / lightbulb / computer valves - contain vacuum
X Ray / electron / atom discovered 25'
quantum mechanics 25'

nothing is not possible
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle 26'

nature is based on uncertainty
cannot know exactly position in space and time at quantum level 29'
create something out of nothing, provided something disappears immediately 31'

Paul Dirac 33'

a 'dirac' - unit of shyness!
Dirac Equation: unified special relativity and quantum mechanics, described electron 36'

anti-electron (mirror of electron)
made out of vacuum: anti-matter collides with matter; all mass is turned into energy and mass disappear completely 43'
whenever particle pops out of empty space so simultaneously does its anti-particle 44'
vacuum goes from nothing to teaming with trillions [Dirac Sea] of pairs of matter-antimatter particles which appear and disappear (virtual particles) 45'

Quantum Field Theory 46'
Willis Lamb - proves activity in nothingness 48'
electron is wobbled by the vacuum which has an energy

Quantum shapes the structure of the universe, nothing has shaped everything 51'

embryonic universe temperature variations are scars of quantum vacuum 53'
matter did not spread out evenly, clumps of quantum irregularities of the vacuum give galaxies 54'
in big bang for every billion particles of matter and anti-matter anialated one particle of matter was left, radiation, gave rise to heat of big bang and CMB. 56'
connection between the nothing from which we were created and the infinite in which we are engulfed 59'

Symphony of Science - A Wave of Reason

2011-04-09T13:47:00.000-07:00

Symphony of Science - 'The Big Bang Beginning' (ft. Hawking, Sagan, Dawkins, Shears, Tyson)

2011-04-09T13:07:00.000-07:00

Ode to the Brain! by Symphony of Science

2011-04-09T12:46:00.000-07:00

Symphony of Science - The Poetry of Reality (An Anthem for Science)

2011-04-09T12:28:00.000-07:00

Stephen Fry: 'Without science, reason is almost akin to superstition' @ 8'35

2011-04-03T13:57:00.000-07:00

source: http://www.humanistlife.org.uk/2011/03/stephen-fry-receives-humanist-lifetime-achievement-award-from-harvard/

Stephen Fry talks about revealed truth v discovered truth, why reason is almost akin to superstition, empiricism and science as humility before the facts, and why you should never try to own the minds of others.

1'05": 2 types of knowledge:

Revealed Truth: holy text eg Holy Bible or Koran from a divinity or a secular text eg Communist Manifesto), cannot ultimately be questioned
Discovered Truth: Anagnorisis - truth that can be shown by observation and apprehension, flourished in Athens (Aristotle, Socrates, Plato), quenched for a 1000 years and replaced by Christian revealed truth. In 17th Royal Society, Isaac Newton (laws of gravity and light and motion) and in France - ideas. Slowly and absolutely remorsefully and ineluctably the power of the Church was pushed back we call it the The Enlightenment

8'20":-

We call it the Enlightenment because the light of reason was shone into every corner of human experience... think with reason but more importantly empirically, which is to say, there is reason, it is reasonable to suppose this, that or another. The beauty of science and freethought is that it doesn’t stop there.

8’30”:-

"Reason is almost akin to superstition, surely humanism stands up for reason... no reason must be tested,

Blaisse Pascal reasoned about light (his theory seemed so reasonable), but he did NOT test his reason. Newton demonstrated by poking his finger through cardboard and demonstrated what Pascal said was untrue.

This was a great moment of empiricism, its testing. You don’t only question, you test - that is the very basis of science.

testing is the very basis of science"

If science has a definition mine is ‘humility before the facts’. It doesn't matter how reasonable what you say is, or how beautiful your theory is, you must be humble and supplicant in front of the facts that open up.

10'35"
I want you to understand it is no part of a humanists job to mock, an individually pious & devout individual, we are not interested in persuaded them against their religion, I've got no interest in telling the religious that there is no god, if they are happy, it is none of my business. However.... the corollary, it is not their business to impose their revealed truth on, a world of doubt, scepticism, empiricism, reason, Enlightenment values... a world that is insoluble, yet has the freedom to think and express ideas, without sense of metaphorical or literal hell-fire of abomination.

Can Science Alone Answer Our Questions? Peter Atkins talks to Stephen Law

2011-04-02T07:00:00.000-07:00

@Think Week, Oxford, Chris Street, David McKnight and Andy Pepperdine from Humanists4Science and Richard Green from AtheistsUK attended this talk on 24th February 2011. And had a great discussion down the pub after the meeting!

Part 1

Peter Atkins
There are 3 ways of acquiring knowledge:-
1) Refer to ancient texts - Religion - theologicians, obfuscate the world
2) Think about what the world should be like - Philosophy - which leads us nowhere, eg the Greeks reflected on what the world should be like
3) Science: do what people like Galileo did - goes out and applies the scientific method - scientists illuminate the world

The scientific method - go out, look at things and then talk about it. But science is not just amiablly wandering through the universe and then chatting to people whoever goes by. Science is about doing controlled experiments, isolating what is there, identifying the deep nature of what is operating, talking about it involves peer review, plus setting your discovering in a network of that which is already known; a network of ideas.

You cannot have an idea clashing in one area of science with another areas of science. The reason for confidence in the scientific endeavour is because ideas arise in many springs and where they mingle they dont conflict eg to understand cosmology you have to draw on knowledge of elementary particles.

Science is not complete, but is developing. Science progresses and understanding deepens.

Can science deal with all the great questions of existence? Science can deal with all the serious questions that have troubled mankind for millenia. My view is that science is without bound. To argue that case you have to distinguish real questions from false questions. Empty questions are invented by theologicians and philosphers eg what is the purpose of the universe. There is no evidence for any purpose of the universe so there is no need to waste time thinking about it. Real questions are the origin of universe and the long term fate of the universe, and what goes on between. Science can answer every one of the real questions. Real questions include:-

how did the universe come into being without intervention - scientist have not cracked this yet but much progress over the last 150 yrs compared to theology/philosophy over last 10,000 years. That is the power of science. How can nothing produce something without intervention. Only a pessimist would think this cannot be answered.
Origin of biosphere... real results in the last 200 years, evolution and natural selection is the solution.
the problem of the inception of life remains .. how did the inorganic become organic. Scientists have many ideas - they do not assert what happens. Science cautiously identifies what might have happened.
Nature of consciousness is another problem that science has not solved but is grappling with. Philosopher might say that science cannot illuminate the subjective. Theories of consciousness will be simulations and neuroscientists understand systems using fMRI, computers emulate aspects of consciousness to understand eg to understand why people resort to religious belief.

In summary, scientists are optimists. They attack problems because they are optimistic they will solve the problems. The driving force of science is optimism.

Philosophers are pessimists and say 'you cannot go there!'

Stephen Law

I'm a great admirer of empirical sciences [Empiricism - Wikipedia]. Empirical science is the most important tool, possibly the only tool that really works for understanding the world around us. Even though some questions cannot be answered by science this does not mean that these questions are off limits to science. I suspect a majority of scientists reject scientism - which says that every decent question can be answered by science.

Part 2

Stephen Law
Why is there something rather than nothing. Why was there a Big Bang rather than no Big Bang. When scientists explain things they use laws to explain things eg why did the water freeze in the pipes. Certain deep laws cannot be answered by science necessarily? In principle is it impossible to answer this question?

Can science answer moral questions? Ought or ought not to do something. David Hume says science deals with 'is' questions. Science cannot explain 'ought' questions or facts. eg why is it wrong. You cannot get an 'ought' from an 'is'.

You can answer questions without doing empirical science

4 sided triangle. Just by thinking about it you know that it doesn't exist - its a conceptual problem.
Why is it that mirrors reverse Left to Right, not Top to Bottom. Its a conceptual problem, thinking things through, not a scientific problem.
The mind-body problem is a conceptual problem. Philosophers do conceptual engineering and clarification

Philosophy is good at spotting a bad argument, stop the philosophical flaws in a scientific argument.

Long before the scientific method of Francis Bacon, empirical based observations are useful eg is there a cat up your shirt. This is not the scientific method. Can be very effective. Can science refute what is 'behind the veil' - the supernatural. Claims about god do not need science - there is a conceptual problems of god - non-temporal agency. Look out of the window - a lot of good stuff, Evil God Hypothesis is not true, cannot be true because of all the good things going on. Ain't no good god because too much good stuff. You don't need science to arrive at this conclusion.

Peter Atkins
SL says science cannot approach questions like the origin of the universe - that's a pessimistic view. Well the approach to use is physics, cosmology, maths. For question about morality you can attack this question through ethology, psychology, evolution, anthropology. It is pessimistic to say you cannot attack the morality question. Philosophers are pessimists.

Part 3

Stephen Law
As David Hume said, you cannot get logically an 'ought' out of an 'is'. (video 3/1:49) Human flourishing is important. The 'is' facts are neutral. QED.
Peter Atkins
Looking at our evolutionary / ethological / social / anthropological history - that is all you need to distinguish an 'is' from an 'ought'. Its survival ultimately. A collection of 'is' facts will ultimately lead to an 'ought' decision (5:22).
Part 4

Part 4
Can something come from nothing? An Interesting Nothing.

Part 5

Part 5
David McKnight: Moral questions are 'aught' questions. Should we be talking about 'aught' questions. Are you trying to tell people what we 'aught' to do. Provide the facts.
Steven Law: 'aught' is not a religious term. Drifting into a incoherent position? Conceptual distinction between authoritarians and liberals (make up your own mind).

Peter Atkins: Consciousness - cannot be modelled or emulated at moment.
Peter Atkins: Moral and Political philosophers are interesting & important - dealing with emergent problems of society. Where philosophy is NOT useful is in exposing the workings of the universe.

Role of mathematics.

Part 6

Richard Dawkins, Vice President BHA was in the audience.

Part 6: Questions from the audience. I asked a question: Here is the verbatim transcription. My emphasis in brackets:-

1'35": Chris Street (anonymously) 'This is a question for both our speakers, Peter Atkins and Steven Law, who are both distinguished supporters of the British Humanist Association (BHA). Has science a role to play in humanistic philosophy and do you agree that the BHA strategy does not include science?
1' 50": Peter Atkins 'Stephen this is your question'.
1' 55": Stephen Law 'Sorry just say the last bit again'
2'00": Chris Street 'Do you agree that the BHA strategy does not include any reference to science?
2'04": Stephen Law (unclearly) 'Strategy? (confused) Would it be right if the strategy did include science? Well give me an example.

2'10": Chris Street ' I have in mind that the BHA strategy claims that reason has a part in understanding the world.

2'40": Chris Street (agrees)

2'42": Stephen Law 'But the suggestion that the BHA is a closet anti-science organisation, um, doesn't rate philosophy and doesn't rate science, I'm absolutely sure that that is not true. I'm sure you don't think that either?

2'56": Chris Street 'I don't' (I don't think BHA is anti-science or anti-philosophy).

Can science answer 'what is the meaning of life? "On Being" by Peter Atkins

2011-03-31T18:50:00.000-07:00

source: http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2011/03/peter-atkins-vs-mary-midgley-on-
whether.html

In this 6 minute interview on Today, John Humphrys talks with Mary Midgley to Peter Atkins about his new book 'On Being' . Its the best 6 minutes Radio 4 I've heard for some time! The discussion includes: the origin of the universe, why philosophy is dead, the scientific method, myths, truth .... & reliable wonder!

But Peter Atkins misses the chance to point out a humanist meme: Whilst the universe has no purpose, we, within it, can decide our own meaning & purpose to life (not relying on a holy book to tell us). Peter Atkins needs to brush up on his Humanism (he is a BHA Distinguished Supporter)

How about this for a strapline for Humanists4Science? 'Is there nothing that the scientific method cannot illuminate and elucidate?'

Reference: Atkins, P., On Being, 2011, Oxford, Oxford University Press, p. 104 (available from Amazon.co.uk):-

'My own faith, my scientific faith, is that there is nothing that the scientific method cannot illuminate and elucidate'

Oxford scientist Prof Peter Atkins and philosopher Mary Midgley discuss whether there is anything more than facts, facts and more facts.

my synopsis of interview by John Humphrys, Today.
All quotes from Peter Atkins, except where indicated. My additions in [ ].

philosophers have tried for millennia, to answer the great questions e.g. where did we come from?, why are we here?. Should philosophers bother ... just leave it to the scientists who deal in facts? That's the argument of Peter Atkins book 'On Being'. (JH)
3 ways of getting knowledge about the world:

1. refer to holy books [religion]

2. think about what it should be [philosophy]

3. go out and see what it's like [science] - favoured by Peter Atkins - that's what science is all about

Myths that emphasise the importance of these great questions [religion], have given way to truth [revealed by science]
Myths such as? (JH)
myths about afterlife and creation of universe have given way (but not completely) to scientific investigation, as an optimist, shows the way to the future understanding of the world
As a scientist can you answer: 'why are we here?' (JH)

Yes I could. It's just by accident! We just tumbled into being, the universe somehow came into existence. We don't know that, but its not outside the reach of science to consider the grand question: what is the origin of the universe? Science in due course will come up with verifiable theories about how universe came into being .... it was inevitable that we and our brains would tumble into existence [evolution by natural selection]

this is philosophical view not science! (MM)
imperialistic view (MM)

can physical science give us knowledge about everything eg 'history'? No! (MM)

for a logical or maths question - ask a scientist (MM)
most of the questions we ask are about the working of human life not about physical detail (MM)

philosophical obfustification!
science goes out to answer the really deep questions about existence
whereas a philosopher, typically a pessimist, is like a traffic warden...

Are you an optimist, as a scientist, with all the dire warnings about how the world & universe could end? (JH)
We can have fun before the world expires! Part of the fun is understanding the nature of the world, how it works, how it came into existence!
the really deep questions that philosophers try to answer is 'the meaning of human life' and putting together the elements of the human life so they make sense. These are more important than the causal nature of the universe. (MM)
science identifies the really deep questions of existence, philosophers typically are pessimists (like traffic wardens), philosophers obfuscate, philosophers verge on edge of being theologians.
Science identifies deep questions
Philosophers focus on the non-questions like the meaning of life. What is the meaning of human life? This is a philosophical non-question! There is no meaning to life!
And you're an optimist? What a bleak assessment! (JH)
Yes, being bleak is part of the pleasure of being alive!
MM get us out of that one! (JH)
This talk about accident is rubbish! You can talk about a car accident but we can't talk about the whole thing being an accident, it's unintelligible. (MM)
it is much more understandable that the universe is an accident, the universe fell into existence somehow, rather than, for example, there being a creator who somehow nudged it into existence.
But you said "I think, not I can prove". Surely science should say more? (JH)

science does not rush into explanations, it edges towards answers in a very self confident authoritive way
humanity should be deeply proud that it stumbled upon a way [the scientific method] of discovering the truth about the universe

Mary Midgley, in less than 30 seconds tell us why we are here! (JH)

this is a big question but.. (MM)
physical science answers small questions (MM)

a tiny part of the view of the worldview (MM)

science adds wonder to the world

... that was there before (MM)
science adds reliable wonder!

Does maths explain religious decline?

2011-03-30T23:59:00.001-07:00

Last week three American academics got widespread publicity for predicting the continued decline of religion. A specific prediction "nearly 70% of the Netherlands will be non-a liated [to religion] by midcentury" was widely quoted.

So what, you might think. But the paper is more interesting than the press reports suggest.

The authors show that the decline in religious affiliation (as measured in national censuses) in four European countries follows a single mathematical form. They derive this form by assuming that religion and non-religion are two competing social groups - a view that seems ridiculously simple-minded - and explain the growth in non-religion by a drop in the perceived utility of religion. It seems odd, even offensive, to use the term 'utility' for social groups whose key differences are their opinions about truth. More significantly the authors do not explain why the utility of religion should have declined. They therefore provide no insight into the trends they document.

The interesting bit comes next.

The authors extended their mathematical model to cases where there was limited communication between the competing social groups. These models predicted the same processes of change but over a longer period. Even quite small amounts of communication between groups was sufficient to facilitate the decline in religious affiliation IF the utility of affiliation was falling.

This kind of modeling can contribute to our understanding of secularisation - but it will be essential to understand changes in the 'perceived utility of affiliation'.

The paper

A mathematical model of social group competition with application to the growth of religious non-afilliation.
Daniel M. Abrams and Haley A. Yaple of Northwestern University and Richard J. Wiener of the University of Arizona.

How Everything was formed from Nothing

2011-03-28T17:41:00.000-07:00

source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00zwndy/Everything_and_Nothing_Nothing/ - available to view until 4th April 2011.

crabsallover says 'agentless act = nothing vacuum = virtual particles = anti-matter & matter collide = Big Bang = quantum fluctuations = universe = galaxies = life = us = Everything from Nothing!'

From the BBC:-

'Two-part documentary which deals with two of the deepest questions there are - what is everything, and what is nothing?

In two epic, surreal and mind-expanding films, Professor Jim Al-Khalili searches for an answer to these questions as he explores the true size and shape of the universe and delves into the amazing science behind apparent nothingness.

The second part, Nothing, explores science at the very limits of human perception, where we now understand the deepest mysteries of the universe lie. Jim sets out to answer one very simple question - what is nothing? His journey ends with perhaps the most profound insight about reality that humanity has ever made. Everything came from nothing. The quantum world of the super-small shaped the vast universe we inhabit today, and Jim can prove it.'