Monday, February 26, 2007

Moral equivalence bollocks

And whilst we're on the subject...
Today's Guardian carried one of the more abjectly craven pieces of writing I've seen in a long time. Presented as an article about the stand-off between theist superstition and rationality, it staked its position from the start, by quoting an expert in fairies at the bottom of the garden, or some such, Colin Slee, Dean of Southwark, who believed that there existed a triangulation between fundamentalist theists, "fundamentalist atheists", and reasonable theists (like himself, obviously) who represented the only reasonable course.
This, of course, ignores the obvious objection that nobody blows up aeroplanes in the name of rationality. But also tries to place superstition and rationality on the same level. No!!! Atheism is simply the statement that there is not enough evidence to support the "My imaginary friend created the universe" hypothesis. Theism can come in many guises, but they can all be divided into one of two camps - either those which directly contradict evidence and don't care (cf. Creationism), or those which try to maintain a scientific approach, and then add a layer of god on top. The second of which is no more rational than the first - it ignores the principle of parsimony (one of the basic things to take into account when trying to explain anything). If there is no evidence that fairies live at the bottom of your garden, you don't remain neutral on the subject, according people who believe that they do the same respect as people who think it's daft. You say it's daft. If those people then claim that the fairies have written down a moral code about how to live your life, you laugh at them, and ask how it has any effect on reality.
And don't forget - for a theist like Colin Slee, all it takes is a voice in his head telling him that he must go out and blow up tube trains or murder prostitutes, and he's in a real dilemma. Does he do his duty to god, as Abraham did when god told him to murder his son? Or does he ignore god, thus repudiating all his moral beliefs? All theists are only such a voice away from psychopathy. Scary, eh?

8 Comments:

Blogger Neil said...

This is well written, and funny. But I think your fairies analogy fails in the case of rational theists (or moderate theists, whatever they are.) There are theists for whom God is not any kind of "imaginary friend." To take the most radical example, Buddhists. Although you may want to put them in the atheist camp?

I think you define theism too narrowly to "prove" your case.

7:19 AM  
Blogger Puskas said...

To the extent that Buddhists are people who follow the teachings of the Buddha, they aren't necessarily being religious - merely following a philosophical train of thought. If they start praying to him, attributing him magical powers, and expecting this long dead teacher to intervene in their day to day lives, they are. As for other "moderate" theists - give me an example of a Christian, say, or a Muslim, who doesn't believe that god exists. In which case, how do you get away from the imaginary friend argument? They're asserting the existence of something with no evidence behind it. No different from claiming there are fairies at the bottom of the garden.

7:51 AM  
Blogger Neil said...

I disagree that people engaging in religious language games are necessarily adding extra entities to the Universe. They may be reflecting on a numinous quality in their own experience, commenting on the unity of all energy, struggling to put into words some psychological symbolism etc etc. (See The Varieties Of Religious Experience by William James.)

11:27 AM  
Blogger Apotropos said...

There are millions of people in china for whom I have no experience nor any scientific evidence of their existence. Are they imaginary? Moreover, some scientists work with subatomic and celestial particles (quarks, WIMPS, etc.), which many scientists have not seen through experimentation. Yet there are scientists who accept the existence of quarks despite not having experienced them, accept their physical principles and their interactions. Are they theists because they believe in the existence and functioning of something they cannot and have not witnessed first hand?

8:20 PM  
Blogger Puskas said...

Apotropos - Evidence doesn't have to be direct, visual evidence, obviously. And in the case of certain theoretical particles, it may merely be that they make the maths work, and _something_ has to be there. God, however, has no supporting evidence. And offers no extra explanatory properties that help our understanding. So what's your point?

10:47 PM  
Blogger plymouth rock said...

Hiya Puskas. nice to see you back online again. Guess I'll see you at Easter then?

On the subject of all things invisible to the naked eye, there's such a thing as an Oh-My-God Particle. Presume you probably know this. This unlikely fact cropped up in conversation in a Farringdon pub, some years ago. "An Oh My God Particle?", I thought to myself, humming and hawing all the while, "I'll believe that when I see one".

11:31 PM  
Blogger Brindle said...

--grin, fading very slowly--

6:41 PM  
Blogger plymouth rock said...

"give me an example of a Christian, say, or a Muslim, who doesn't believe that god exists."

The head honcho, the Archbishop of Canterbury himself, said recently that he wasn't entirely sure about the existence of God:

ABC Rowan Williams (for it is he) "I don’t know that there is God or a God in the simple sense that I can tick that off as an item I’m familiar with"

Which is just more power to your (puskas's) elbow, regarding the ridiculousness of it all, really

10:31 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home