Nice quotation

“Those who can make you believe in absurdities can also make you commit atrocities.”

Voltaire (1694-1778)

In defence of reason

A friend of mine, a lady in Orlando, Florida, recently wrote on a forum about the problem of violent and aggressive Christians who are intolerant of her atheism. My response follows:

It’s hard to imagine your experience because in London, although religious people are unfortunately frequently given preferential treatment out of political correctness, they do not (as it stands) have the same level of domination as they do in the USA (although some suspect Blair went to war largely because of a shared religious zeal with Bush). Often when I speak out about my atheism (as I frequently do) I find that people agree with me - it was just that previously “the truth that dare not speak its name”. As Richard Dawkins has said, the time for this luxury is over, and if we don’t start speaking sense in large numbers, these crazy people will remain a serious risk to all of us.

I would like to second some of the replies on here. Certainly people are hostile because they are afraid, and they are afraid because they do not understand - a consequence of low intellect, religious brainwashing, ignorance or willful self-delusion (the “comforter” Dawkins has mentioned).

I think, providing it will not threaten your physical well-being, you should not hide your atheism and if you receive any threats from believers your best weapon is the Bible itself (but also not forgetting the law). Because the Bible is so full of contradictions it is easy to find passages to justify whatever you like. Simply turn to the “Love thine enemy” line for starters (which Jesus himself did not do, incidentally, since he condemns unbelievers to the fictional Hell).

Also I agree with people that it’s a good idea to present atheism in a positive light. Like Sam Harris, I don’t even like the term atheism because of its negative connotations. See Max Beran’s quote “If Richard Dawkins’ atheism can be called a belief, can I say that my not collecting stamps is a hobby?”. We do not have a term for people who don’t believe in the flying spaghetti monster - just “normal” should suffice. I present myself as a humanist, which includes not believing in silly superstitions which are immoral and for which there is no evidence.

Although we don’t experience your environment day to day, I can imagine how uncomfortable it is to be ostracised simply for being rational and refusing to accept primitive dogma. If it is any consolation, one only needs to read their books to see that Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens are all well aware that America is the most crucial ground to convert to reason first of all, and the ball is rolling… And if ever you need any support at all in the defence of reason and yourself, turn to this group and to me, and you will get it.

Encarta article on atheism

Here is the article on atheism from Microsoft Encarta of 2004. I quote it here because it is a truly excellent summary by the Cambridge philosopher Simon Blackburn:

Atheism (Greek, a, “not”; theos, “god”), lack of belief in any form of deity.

I INTRODUCTION

An atheist acknowledges no God or gods. Atheism is stronger than agnosticism, which is the view that we have no knowledge either way. An agnostic denies both that we know that God, or gods, exist, and that we know that they do not. An atheist may disagree with this, claiming even to know that no God exists, for example through having a disproof of such existence.

But many, or even most, atheists would agree with the agnostic that this is an area where knowledge is not to be had. However, an agnostic could hold that while we lack knowledge, our best bet is that some kind of God exists, so we should fill the gap by trust or faith in the existence of some kind of divinity. An atheist will reject any such leap of faith as well. An atheist holds that the most reasonable attitude is not to believe in any God or gods. Our attitude to a Christian God, or Jehovah, or Allah, should be the same as most contemporary people’s attitudes to the ancient gods of Greece and Rome, or to Santa Claus or the tooth fairy. Belief in any divinity is mere superstition.

II ARGUMENTS FOR ATHEISM

Atheism is defended by a number of considerations.

First, atheists will reject traditional attempts to prove the existence of a god. Second, atheists will reject the propriety of a leap of faith, or unsupported claim to the existence of such a being. For atheism, bare faith is not a virtue, but a vice, for it is extravagant and irresponsible to believe in things when there is no reason to do so. In everyday life this is obvious, and we ought to apply the same standards whatever the subject of belief. Atheists typically hold that human beings are drawn to religions by fear of the unknown, against which we defend ourselves in the vain belief that proper prayers and sacrifices can ward off illness, disease, famine, and death. The atheist sees this as immature and regrettable.

Atheists may also try to show that it is highly unlikely that any god exists, since the features ascribed to the deity are too improbable, just as the doings of Santa Claus are too improbable for grown-ups to believe that anyone could perform them. Thus it seems highly improbable that an all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful Being would allow the multitude of evils that beset animal and human existence. The standard religious reply””that these are mysteries that it is not open to us to fathom””leaves a concept of God sufficiently far removed from human life not to be worth serious attention.

Finally, atheists will typically stress the dangers of religious belief. These dangers may vary with the exact religion in question, but both in history and in the contemporary world, belief in the jealous, vengeful God of the Bible and the Koran spawns sectarianism and intolerance, bigotry and self-righteousness. There are passages in holy texts that literally command intolerance and hatred of those who are different, contempt of women and shame at sexuality, mistrust of science and reason, and subordination of all other ethical duties to the supreme obligation of the particular religious body or Church.

III HISTORY OF ATHEISM

Atheism has an ancient history in the East, especially in India, where various early schools espousing rationalism and materialism existed. The most notable was the Lokayata school, perhaps dating from the 7th century bc or earlier. Buddhism, at least originally, was close to atheism, while some schools falling under the umbrella of Hinduism, such as the Advaita Vedanta of Shankara can be regarded as atheistic.

Atheism was seldom voiced in the Christian world until the 18th century, since it was too dangerous to do so. The philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) was the first of the moderns to attract the dangerous label of being an atheist, although his writings are carefully ambiguous. A more common, although risky, halfway house was deism, which followed the belief of the Greek philosopher Epicurus (341-270 bc) that while there might be gods, they had no apparent intercourse with human beings, and no apparent interest in their doings.

The prevailing climate until the mid-18th century was that no thinking person could possibly be an atheist, and that atheism in practice would dissolve all the morality that ties together civil society. Even David Hume (1711-1776) refused the label of atheist, although he wrote eloquently and convincingly against the involvement of religion in morality, and also against superstition, enthusiasm, reports of miracles, and arguments for the existence of God and the afterlife.

In France philosophers such as the Baron d’Holbach (1723-1789) were more forthcoming in avowing atheism, though other leading Enlightenment figures such as Voltaire and Diderot were deists. Perhaps the most remarkable progress was marked by the Constitution of the United States of America, which in Thomas Jefferson’s words entrenched the “wall of separation” of Church from State, effectively confining religion to the sphere of the private, at least in principle.

By the 19th century the climate changed markedly, and writers such as Percy Bysshe Shelley and Samuel Taylor Coleridge as well as philosophers were happy to acknowledge their atheism. The emergence of rigorous historical analysis of the Bible and other texts, and then the increasing power of Darwinism to explain what had otherwise seemed divine in nature, both contributed to the increasing secularization of the modern world.

While they reject religious belief, atheists can differ over their attitude to many features of religious expression in art, music, poetry, or architecture. Some may find such expressions too heavily contaminated by what they regard as false dogma to be enjoyable or illuminating. Others may distinguish. A poem or piece of music that is conventionally called religious may be a profound expression of love, hope, despair, or triumph over despair. These are emotions all human beings share and an atheist can value expressions of them for their own sake. Thus while some atheists would feel ashamed of being moved by the words of some of the Psalms, or the Book of Common Prayer, others might accept and admire them as poetical expressions of the emotional needs of mankind. An atheist might be drawn to this more tolerant attitude by reflecting that religion itself is a human invention, and presumably takes something from the better as well as the worse parts of human nature.

This less combative attitude protects atheists against the charge of being shallow or materialistic or lacking higher feelings. It may in turn come close to the position of some modern theologians and churchmen, who, without admitting in so many words that they are atheists, wish to strip away any taint of childish superstition, childish belief in the supernatural, or childish beliefs about historical events, from the practices of religion, which they nevertheless insist on preserving. But in the opinion of most atheists these are desperate strategies to avoid admitting the obvious.

Advertising lie

Watching the highly entertaining Die Hard 4.0 last night exposed me to some pre-film advertising from Vodafone, among others, who were saying:

“Vodafone - the Internet is now mobile.”

Although Vodafone imply here (with - at best - delusions of grandeur) that they represent the whole of the Internet, I’ve been using MSN Messenger, Internet Explorer, Flash Player and e-mail on my (Orange network) phone for several years now. There can be only two possible explanations:

1. Vodafone have no idea about the state of technology and what their competition are doing.
2. This is a stupid facile advert.

Which do you think it might be..?

Past versus present

Some British MPs are currently being criticised by the infantile tabloid media for admitting they sampled cannabis in the past. We should be worried if they hadn’t. Such a mild degree of experimentation is only to be expected from enquiring minds who were at university during the sixties, and in any case having tried this drug the MPs are in a better position to judge it.

In addition to this, what a person has said, done or believed in the past is irrelevant to what they say, do or believe now.

The behaviour of men

The things I am about to say are slightly unusual, as I usually prefer women to men and am quick to sympathise with them, appreciating that many men are oafish and ignorant (and all too often have a childish obsession with sport). But what I will say is both true and and politically incorrect, so on those grounds well worth saying.

When a man starts seeing a woman than leaves her, he is often condemned as having been seeking “only one thing” (this being the thing she most obviously advertises and promotes). How could he behave in such a deplorable way?

Well, I’ll tell you how: because there is another side to the story, one that is rarely told. Have you considered that the man might also have been looking for a full and lasting relationship but discovered - to his intense disappointment - that the woman could not deliver the intellectual companionship, or other qualities of character, he had hoped for?

When a woman protests “You only wanted me for my body!”, such a man might reasonably counter “You only had your body”.

Similarly, a woman might complain “You dumped me!” after a relationship ends following her own bad behaviour (indeed I have had this said to me by a very beautiful and - unsurprisingly - tempramental woman). “You dumped yourself” is the appropriate reply.

Yes, shock, horror, feminists, but there are many silly, shallow and manipulative women in society (as well as, of course, many lovely ones). Such women need to understand that their looks alone are not sufficient to win them a relationship with any self-respecting man - and nor should they ever wish them to be.

Respecting people’s views

We are often told in this age of political correctness that we should respect the views of other people. This is absurd. We should respect their right to hold whatever view they like (whatever this has to do with it) but we are certainly not obliged to respect anybody’s views per se.

Ostentatious displays of wealth

The bigger the watch/car, the smaller the real self-esteem.

Squatters’ Paradise

This evening I attended a standard private view in Heddon Street, which is a delightful area of London, full of cafes and bars, right next to Regent Street. The art exhibited some technical skill (not much, so as to remain fashionable) and I had an enjoyable chat with a lady who turned out to be one of the gallery staff. We discussed yoga and what fad it has become. I also mentioned a mystical friend of mine who frequently declares that he can release energy from trees, and I explained that the only way to release energy from trees is to burn them, which caused her much mirth. It is surprising how many people will actually admit reason if you merely present it to them plainly. It is possible to break the charade of Emperor’s New Clothes.

But I have a real gem for you now. The title of my article may rhyme with Carter’s great track Shoppers’ Paradise, but it is about the fact that after the Heddon Street gallery I visited the ex-Iraqi consulate in Knightsbridge, which since 6th July has been taken over by a bunch of squatters. They clambered through an open back window and - due to the absurd laws of this country - are allowed to stay to deface the premises until the owners get around to evicting them. They have created what they call an art gallery, but I have photographed it to prove otherwise.

This “gallery” was really notable in that it exhibited no talent whatsoever. In fact it was indistinguishable from your local tip. There were simply rooms full of junk. The only interesting thing about the exhibition was having a look at what used to be the Iraqi consulate, since one or two rooms seemed to be fairly intact and unmolested by the squatters and gave an impression of what it might once have been like. From a personal perspective, as a programmer who has spent many hundreds of hours researching hard facts in order to create functional art, I am disdainful of these people’s pretentious non-achievements in the same way that a trained classical violinist might be. As they say, there is nothing wrong with being open-minded, but you should not be so open-minded that your brains fall out. Show me some talent and some substantial commentary, and I will show you some respect.

On my way out from this labyrinthine den of disorder, the navigating of which felt a little like playing a first person shooter game, I communicated with one of the organisers, who explained that the squatters are due in court in the morning and will probably be evicted. Obviously none of these people (despite being literate) have the slightest intention of developing any skills or getting gainful employment and, since they are illegally occupying the premises it is only right that they are evicted - but to where would they be moving, I enquired? “Oh, a place in Mayfair”, he said. “Well, that’s not too bad”, I replied, “even I can’t afford to live there”.

The Chap

In alignment with my recent article The Embrace of Decadence, and as I await a 3-piece ivory linen suit currently being tailored for me by Gieves & Hawkes of Savile Row, I have joined the Facebook group for The Chap magazine (which I have mentioned before) - that last bastion of manners in this country. May it ever flourish.

Holy Bible