Saturday, February 18, 2006

Sophisticated Critique of Many Worlds Explanation of Fine-Tuning

[This post was originally published on The Secular Outpost on February 18, 2006. It was republished here on November 7, 2021 with the date manually adjusted to reflect its original publication date. I have also updated the link to reflect the new location of the essay]

The following essay was recommended to me by Paul Draper. The paper is not a defense of the fine-tuning argument, but he regards it as one of the best critiques of the many worlds explanation of fine-tuning:

Roger White, "Fine-tuning and Multiple Universes," forthcoming in Nous
http://web.mit.edu/rog/www/papers/fine_tuning.pdf (PDF)

Here is some info about the author:

ROGER WHITE, (Ph.D., MIT), Assistant Professor of Philosophy, specializes in philosophy of science, epistemology, and metaphysics. He is currently focusing on epistemological issues in the philosophy of science, particularly those having to do with probability and explanation. His main interests in metaphysics concern matters of identity and essential properties. He is the author of "Fine-tuning and Multiple Universes" (Nous).

Friday, February 17, 2006

Frivolous Lawsuit on the Historicity of Jesus

[This post was originally published on The Secular Outpost on February 17, 2006. It was republished here on November 7, 2021 with the date manually adjusted to reflect its original publication date.]

Here's one that belongs in the category, "I don't know whether to laugh or to cry."

When people see the words "Catholic priest" and "stand trial" used together, they will probably assume that the priest is either being prosecuted or sued for some sort of alleged sexual abuse. A recent court proceeding in Italy, however, provides an amusing, if not irritating, exception to that trend. CNN recently reported that Luigi Cascioli, an Italian atheist, had petitioned the local court to force a Catholic priest to stand trial because--brace yourself--the priest had the audacity to assert that Jesus existed as a historical person. Cascioli claimed that the priest's assertion of the historicity of Jesus violated two laws: (1) a prohibition against "fraudulently deceiving people;" and (2) a law against "impersonation" or "personal gain from attributing a false name to someone."

The judge rightfully dismissed the ridiculous case. What I find baffling, however, is the idea that Cascioli actually believed that the Catholic priest had violated the law -- merely by asserting that Jesus existed. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that Jesus didn't exist as a historical person. Even if it were the case that Jesus never existed, it wouldn't follow that Catholic priests who assert the historicity of Jesus are doing so fraudulently. In other words, it could be the case that the priest was honestly mistaken and not deliberately spreading information he knew to be false. In order to prove the priest had violated the law, however, Cascioli must not only prove that Jesus didn't exist, but that the Catholic priest knew that Jesus didn't exist. And that (the idea that the priest knew that Jesus didn't exist) strikes me as not only false, but absurd.

Cascioli's stupid lawsuit is an embarrassment to atheists worldwide. It is not representative of atheistic thought. 

Reppert on Drange vs. Wilson

[This post was originally published on The Secular Outpost on February 17, 2006. It was republished here on November 7, 2021 with the date manually adjusted to reflect its original publication date.]

Victor Reppert here provides an assessment of the Drange-Wilson debate on the existence of the Christian God.

Thursday, February 16, 2006

Are Atheists "Afraid" of God?

[This post was originally published on The Secular Outpost on February 16, 2006. It was republished here on November 7, 2021 with the date manually adjusted to reflect its original publication date.]

Imagine a man, Tom, who likes sweets but not ice cream. He has no personal disagreements with anyone who does eat ice cream; he just chooses not to eat ice cream himself. In fact, Tom is friends with several people who will eat ice cream, but no other dessert. Suddenly, out of nowhere, comes an editorial from a prominent TV personality and ice cream lover making all sorts of accusations about people like Tom who don't eat ice cream. According to the editorial, people like Tom dislike the taste of ice cream so much that they are afraid of ice cream and generally unhappy people.

If you were Tom, how would you react? If you are anything like me, you might have mixed emotions, including confusion, sadness, and even outrage. Has this guy ever actually met someone who doesn't like ice cream? Who does this guy think he is? How dare he claim that everyone who doesn't eat ice cream is unhappy! Is society so hostile to people who don't like ice cream that these sort of bigoted remarks are tolerated by a mainstream journalist?

On the website of KOMO TV 4 in Seattle, Washington, Ken Schram posted an analogous editorial about atheists. According to Schram, claimed that atheists have the following characteristics:

  • They fear God so much that even hearing the word "God" distresses them.
  • He has observed Atheists squeeze their eyes shut when they remove bills from their pocket out of fear that they might see the phrase "In God we Trust."
  • Some go out of their way when driving to avoid passing churches, synagogues, mosques and temples.
  • Some recoil at the sight of a cross, crucifix, menorah, Star of David, or the presence of Hare Krishna proselytizers.

As the Center for Religious Tolerance points out, however, this doesn't match the descriptions of atheism that they have witnessed:

Our Atheist staff member reports that they have never performed any of these behaviors. None of the rest of us in this office have either observed them engaging in these behaviors, nor have we seen any of our Atheist friends and acquaintances doing them. They seem to be figments of Ken Schram's imagination.

Figments of Ken Schram's imagination, indeed. But this begs the question: why would a mainstream journalist be perpetuating a stereotype against a minority, a stereotype that could be shown to be false by even minimal investigation? His comments must either be the result of ignorance or dishonesty. In either case, it is obvious that Ken Schram is bigoted against atheists.

We next turn to Schram's armchair psychoanalysis of the millions of atheists around the world. Despite the obvious fact that he doesn't have a clue about atheists, he then proceeds to inform his readers that atheists derive some sort of sadistic pleasure from making theists suffer. Schram writes:

And even though atheists are free to go about their disbelieving ways, that doesn't seem enough to make them happy.

No. What makes atheists happy is making those who believe in God cringe.

So atheists go to court a lot.

Imagine if a prominent journalist wrote, "What makes Jews happy is making non-Jews cringe." Not only would such statements be factually inaccurate, they would be held in moral contempt. Not just Jews, but all reasonable non-Jews, would find such a slur offensive. And while the fact that someone would make such a racial or religious slur would not be news, the fact that a prominent member of the media would make such a slur would be news. There would be protests and calls for the journalist's termination.

Unlike other minorities, however, atheists are probably the only remaining minority in which it is socially acceptable to openly express prejudice against. There are probably two reasons for this. First, there are undoubtedly many people like Schram who share Schram's views. That is not the entire explanation, however. Ironically, I believe that the atheistic community also shares some responsibility for this situation and that leads to my second reason. By "the atheistic community," I don't mean atheistic membership organizations or the individuals who join them. Rather, I mean the millions of atheists who are apathetic about their atheism and in the closet to their families, co-workers, and neighbors. If we as a community aren't willing to defend ourselves, how can we expect anyone else to do so?

Saturday, February 04, 2006

Link: What it's Like to be an Atheist

[This post was originally published on The Secular Outpost on February 4, 2006. It was republished here on November 7, 2021 with the date manually adjusted to reflect its original publication date.]

Richard Carrier brought the following to my attention:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/15/12016/649

Could an Atheist Pass a Lie Detector Test while Proclaiming Atheism?

[This post was originally published on The Secular Outpost on February 4, 2006. It was republished here on November 7, 2021 with the date manually adjusted to reflect its original publication date.]

(Redating this post.)

While I am discussing the theme of defining one's opponents out of existence, here's an interesting twist on the idea. I received an email from a Christian with a link to an article that suggests most atheists could not pass a lie detector test if asked during the test if they believe in God and answered "No." The following is an excerpt.

"Indeed, to suppress the truth that God has placed within each man only leads to varying degrees of neurosis. As the noted psychologist Rollo May wrote in The Art of Counseling, "I have been startled by the fact that practically every genuine atheist with whom I have dealt has exhibited unmistakable neurotic tendencies. How [do we] account for this curious fact?"16 And, perhaps even more suggestive, according to Senior Pastor Jess Moody of the First Baptist Church of Van Nuys, California, "Lie detector tests were administered to more than 25,000 people. One of the questions was, 'Do you believe in God?' In every case, when a person answered no, the lie detector said he was lying." 17
---

Notes

16. Rollo May, The Art of Counseling, (NY Abingdon 1967), p. 215.

17. Cited in Los Angeles Times, June 28, 1986. We could not confirm this research. Convinced philosophical atheists clearly could pass lie detector tests since these measure conviction of belief. But such results, if valid, clearly show that the more garden-variety practical, as opposed to philosophical, atheists really aren't so sure of their views.

Ultimately, the question, "Can atheists proclaim their atheism during a lie detector test and pass the test?", is an empirical question, and even the author of the above article admits he was unable to confirm the "research" supporting the idea that atheists could not pass the test. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if this turned out to be an urban legend.

Wednesday, February 01, 2006

The Possibility of Proving the Non-Existence of Something

[This post was originally published on The Secular Outpost on February 1, 2006. It was republished here on November 7, 2021 with the date manually adjusted to reflect its original publication date.]

In a recent blog entry, theistic philosopher William Vallicella criticizes a statement made by psychologist Paul Vitz, in which Vitz asserted that it is "intrinsically impossible" to "prove the non-existence of anything." As Vallicelli correctly points out:

"But surely there are things whose nonexistence can be proven. The nonexistence of a round square can be proven a priori by simply noting that something that is both round and nonround cannot exist."

What Vallicelli writes is consistent with my own essay on the subject, where I made the following observation.

Indeed, there are actually two ways to prove the nonexistence of something. One way is to prove that it cannot exist because it leads to contradictions (e.g., square circles, married bachelors, etc.). ...

The other way to prove the nonexistence of something is, in the words of Keith Parsons, "by carefully looking and seeing."

I could not agree with Vallicelli more when he concludes that Vitz's assertion is "plainly false."