Impeccably Logical Challenge To Dawkins

I love this site. It is a totally logical refutation of Dawkin's theories. In fact, it proves beyond any doubt that Professor Dawkins does not himself exist at all. Just go to the title link and you too can share the experience of being cleansed by the pure and unadulterated logic of this wonderful shaman.

Pascal's Wager

For no reason I need record here, I mentioned Pascal's wager in the course of a discussion I was having with The Firm's senior partner. In short form I summarised its terms as follows:

We cannot know whether God exists. He may; in which case we are damned if we do not believe in him. He may not; in which case no consequence follows whether we believe or not. Therefore, a sane man will place his bet on God's existence and believe with all his heart. This is because this is the only choice that has any possibility of a desirable outcome i.e. salvation.

The senior partner (who does have a belief system ecompassing matters beyond the material world) reacted instinctively (as most people do) that this was an intellectually dishonest, or, at least not an honourable reason, for believing in a god.

It occurred to me afterwards to re-read the original. Of course, this is considerably more nuanced than my summary. It is readily available at 233 of Pascal's Pensees published by The Gutenberg Project.

The whole of 233 should be read before criticising it and I quote only two extracts:

"If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is. This being so, who will dare to undertake the decision of the question? Not we, who have no affinity to Him.

Who then will blame Christians for not being able to give a reason for their belief, since they profess a religion for which they cannot give a reason? They declare, in expounding it to the world, that it is a foolishness, stultitiam;[90] and then you complain that they do not prove it! If they proved it, they would not keep their word; it is in lacking proofs, that they are not lacking in sense. "Yes, but although this excuses those who offer it as such, and takes away from them the blame of putting it forward without reason, it does not excuse those who receive it." Let us then examine this point, and say, "God is, or He is not." But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up. What will you wager? According to reason, you can do neither the one thing nor the other; according to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions."

and:

"For it is no use to say it is uncertain if we will gain, and it is certain that we risk, and that the infinite distance between the certainty of what is staked and the uncertainty of what will be gained, equals the finite good which is certainly staked against the uncertain infinite. It is not so, as every player stakes a certainty to gain an uncertainty, and yet he stakes a finite certainty to gain a finite uncertainty, without transgressing against reason. There is not an infinite distance between the certainty staked and the uncertainty of the gain; that is untrue. In truth, there is an infinity between the certainty of gain and the certainty of loss. But the uncertainty of the gain is proportioned to the certainty of the stake according to the proportion of the chances of gain and loss. Hence it comes that, if there are as many risks on one side as on the other, the course is to play even; and then the certainty of the stake is equal to the uncertainty of the gain, so far is it from fact that there is an infinite distance between them. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain. This is demonstrable; and if men are capable of any truths, this is one."

Well, perhaps a third, just to illustrate that Pascal was not unaware of the arguments that may be marshalled against him:

"Do not then reprove for error those who have made a choice; for you know nothing about it. "No, but I blame them for having made, not this choice, but a choice; for again both he who chooses heads and he who chooses tails are equally at fault, they are both in the wrong. The true course is not to wager at all.""

The Gutenberg Project's edition is a reproduction of the Dutton 1958 New York edition. This is a particularly good choice as the translation has an introduction by T.S.Eliot, one of whose comments is that "Pascal is one of those writers who will be and who must be studied afresh by men in every generation."

The purpose of this post is simply to encourage those who read it to do just that and to point them to an easily available translation of the pensees.

Rename Your Teddy Now

Some Muslims wanted to kill her. Presumably by stoning her to death or inflicting a prolonged lashing.

Our politicians go out of their way to not offend the believers in such practices.

These are people we should offend. Immediately rename your teddy bear.

I suppose 15 days in a Sudan hellhole for renaming (after a child - not the prophet -and upon the childrens' democratic direction) a teddy is considered relatively mild by their standards!

Those are not standards we should aspire to.

The Real Meaning of Religion

Let me tell you a story.

It begins like this:



That's the thief on the right. Well, it's one of them. The one he told would be in paradise with him that very same day. It could not be any other day because they were both about to die. And it could have been the one on the other side anyway. It is difficult to distinguish between thieves. If his hands had not been nailed in then I suppose he could have flipped a coin. But it's pretty easy for him to do that kind of stuff in his head. Gosh, I just tried it. I can flip a coin in my head!!! You get to come to paradise with me and, oh, you on the other side, your just dead.

But they are such nice people really:

Faith Central: An atheist's guide

Libby Purves, the seemingly nice rational person who presents interesting and intelligent programs on Radio 4, has a new religious blog. It is open to atheists but they have to be "grumpy" atheists.

Balderdash! Me, grumpy! I commented as follows:

"The plethora of religions justifies belief in the existence of an instinct to believe in something supernatural but renders extremely improbable the existence of a god to believe in.

The existence of astrologers and the many who read them does not indicate even a tiny probability that astrology is an accurate guide to any individuals' future.

Theists are caught in the same trap. That is why they must rely upon "faith". Faith is a way of ending rational argument. It is the Ace of trumps. Faith = "I believe in X. I can offer you no justification except that millions of others are equally deluded. However, X must be a true belief because I believe in X."

That theists cannot win rational arguments is demonstrated by their final answer: which is to kill you. Islamists are in the news but Christians used to do exactly the same thing."

One might add that many believers in astrology are also theists. They may have a "belief" gene i.e. they will believe in anything.

Not that I have anything against faith (properly regarded):

Richard Dawkins is God: Gosh! I've only just read The God Delusion

God prevented me from uploading this image of Himself correctly. It will be lightning bolts next!

I suppose he did not let me download or upload it because (a) fuck's sake, He's God or (b) it was a bad likeness or (c) copywright infringement or (d) he really is just a greenish panel of nothingness.

Those of you who believe (a) to be the correct answer may as well turn your monitors off. You are beyond redemption and beyond reason. Restarting the computer is probably too difficult for you, so I have kept it nice and simple. If you cannot find the button to turn off the monitor, pull the plug out of the wall and go to bed with a nice cup of chocolate. When you wake up, sell your computer. Knowledge and information are not things you need. Buy a PlayStation. I believe (without knowing and without having any evidence at all and, indeed, without caring whether there is any evidence) that they include a free game entitled "Suicide Bombers and the Ultra-Virgins". You will like it.

Those who answered (b) or (c) are only mildly less insane.

The correct answer was, of course, (d).

There is no God. Professor Dawkins has proved it.

Well, he didn’t really need to. The basic idea is obvious. Did he really need to write a whole book about it? Most of the book is either elaboration or written in support of his alternative explanation for life: Darwinian evolution. His alternative theories may be right (and they are certainly interesting) but you do not need to buy into the positive exposition to realise that the Christian, Jewish or Muslim “god” is an improbable explanation for life on earth.

The improbability of god is summed up in a three word question. Who created god? Once you realise the infinite regression this traps you into (Who created the being or thing that created the being or thing that created god?) no sane person can believe in god.

My school had a joint debating society with a nearby girls’ school. I ran it (essentially, this was the 70’s and the girls mostly just did as they were told - with the exception of my girlfriend: see below). I once held a debate on the existence of God and the utility (or otherwise) of Jesus as a role model. The headmistress of the local girls’ school forbade her pupils to even attend.

That’s right! She did not say “Go forth, and defend Jesus.” She simply did not want the pure little ears of “her girls” to be exposed to contrary opinions. As I remember it, she did not let them attend a debate on homosexuality either. So, god and gayness had a special status. You were not allowed (at least, her girls were not allowed) to dispute the given truths that god was good and gay was bad.

You probably think I am making this up and you will be reinforced in your belief if I tell you that the girls’ school was called Nonsutch School. OK, ye unbelievers go to their website and be justly smited for thy unbelief! And, one girl did turn up! Admittedly, she was my girlfriend at the time but she went to Nonsutch School and defied her headmistress.

I went to Sutton Manor High School (as it was briefly called in an attempted act of camouflage) or, as it is now proud to call itself, its original name, Sutton Grammar School.

I bet the headmistress in question would like me to give her a capital letter. She, dead or alive, does not deserve one (and that goes for god too), but my Headmaster does. Dr Walsh was a religious man and his doctorate was in science (I think, physics). But, although he suspended me on three occasions, he ignored reported sightings of me on the premises and was always a lively and interested participant in our personal debates (otherwise, my harangues, or, from his perspective, the disciplinary interviews).

Lots of (but, crucially, not all) theists act as if they are sane in other aspects of their lives.

It is the “not all” bit that justifies Professor Dawkins’ book and the time and trouble he took to write it.

Incidentally, he is also a very good writer and I have found it difficult to put down this book notwithstanding that I had other pressing matters requiring my immediate attention. That is about as good as it gets if you are looking for praise from me. But, of course, neither “god” nor Professor Dawkins will be even slightly interested in my opinion. On the other hand, at least one of them exists.

I am so convinced of his existence that I have pre-elected myself as High Priest of the cargo cult that will arise around Professor Dawkins' bones. So please address me as Your Holiness in future. Otherwise, Steven will do. But NOT Steve. I'll cast a spell on you if you call me Steve. And you know that, as the preemptive High Priest of the Church of Richard Dawkins, my spells work.