I have heard it argued, most recently in the entertaining Intelligence Squared Debate “Science Refutes God” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKNd_S3iXfs), that faith is perfectly rational because we all use it in everyday life, even in science, and so faith in God is no exception. I will argue here that faith in God is a different kind of faith to the most common types of faith that feature in everyday life. In this case we will call faith drawing a conclusion from incomplete data. 

First an example from everyday life. The term faith is often used to describe the trust that two people in a committed relationship place in each other. This could mean that they are trusting their partners love and respect for them to continue no matter what. This is definitely a leap of faith, because even in the absence of confirming or dis-confirming evidence of your partners continued dedication then this will be believed. But this not the same as religious faith.

The continuation of trust in their other half regardless of, for example, prolonged physical distance, is a product of years of direct empirical evidence. Loving glances, heartfelt declarations of affection, gift giving, seemingly genuine interest in your life etc. etc. The point is that this kind of faith makes its leap from a reliable and consistent body of data. Religious belief does the opposite. The type of data which religious belief uses as justification for its claims are things like inconsistent historical texts, personal revelation, linguistic arguments and fear. Very little, if no direct empirical observation is used, and the thing which it references (an all powerful omnipotent being) is not a common feature of direct human experience. 

On the other hand you have the faith in the partner which is based on evidence gathered directly from the senses about human behavior which is something that almost everyone has much experience of throughout their lives. So that fact that the latter example justifies its faith from a largely dependable source of knowledge (empirical data) and is concerned with something that is a universally common part of human experience (analyzing other peoples behavior) makes it already a more rationally justified faith.

Another difference between the kind of faith featured in the couple example (and countless other common circumstances) and faith in God is that the former will hold trust in the conclusions which the data actually points towards and the latter will hold trust firmly in whatever conclusion they want to believe. A member of the couple makes the kinds of observations of behavior in their loved one as stated above and draws the conclusion that their partner is honest, loves them deeply and so can have trust placed in them. This conclusion is the most likely explanation for the observations made, and so is rational to believe. Even if it turned out their partner turned out to be just a fantastic actor, highly committed to some other gain you offered them, you had no knowledge of this at the time and so because your belief was in line with the available evidence, then it remains rational at that point.

If the data changed nature and began to include unsatisfied glances, decreased will to spend time, increased annoyance/fighting, decrease in declarations of affection etc. etc., then the amount of faith that would be warranted to place in the other half would be reduced. If the amount of faith given stayed constant then then an irrational kind of faith will be held, because the conclusion believed isn’t the most likely given the evidence. 

Religious faith is of this kind. Take belief in a personal God that is all knowing, loving and can intervene in human affairs much like the Christian God. Despite knowledge of things like the horrific diseases that have killed billions of innocent people throughout history, insects that lay their eggs in the stomach of other creatures, the many hostilities of the planet we were created, the abhorrent acts that humans have undergone to their fellow kind all through history or the vast, cold, empty chaos of the universe, belief in the kind of God described above prevails. This is a glaring example of when faith is irrational. Even though there is such a massive mountain of features that are inconsistent with Gods infinite loving or her ability to intervene in the universe, the belief in her as such remains wide spread. 

This is analogous to, continuing the love examples, someone who has fallen for another person and is pursing them endlessly despite receiving consistent negative responses to their efforts. The receiver of the seduction efforts may be nice to their suitor in some ways, but they are making it clear that they in no way have romantic feelings for them, and may often get very angry and be cruel to them at times when their efforts become irritating and obsessive.

The obsessive lover we would not hesitate to call misguided and irrational, because their beliefs are so out of line with what empirical observations indicate, and I conclude that the same considerations should be applied to judging the rationality of faith in God, even if the small possibility of their being one does turn out to be true. Rationality is about proportioning your beliefs to the available evidence, and so long as God is absent from the evidence, belief in him should be weak at best. 

Imagine there is a machine that can replicate everyday waking experience identically, so that being in the machine reality is indistinguishable from our supposed reality. Before entering the machine you are allowed to program the outcomes you want your life within in to achieve - your ideal life would be guaranteed. Whilst in the machine you have no sense that there is an outside reality, and so your experience within it has the same feeling of uncertainty and novelty that we are aware of in our reality. All other conscious beings in the machine world are simulations, but you have no way of telling this.

If offered the chance to plug into this machine, would you accept? You can shape the circumstances which would bring you the most fulfillment and happiness possible. You could design a humanity world where all societies are structured as you would like - poverty could be eradicated, prejudice and violence could be non-existent in this reality. What ever state of affairs you wanted, you could experience as vividly as you are experiencing reality at this very moment. 

What would make someone, and I’m sure there are many, refuse to stay within this reality, even when the machine one could be so much more suited to their preferences, and bring them more pleasure? I think such intuitive resistance shows that our consciousness is not present simply to experience things, but to change and interact with things as well. We are born with the sense that we live in a real, physical reality, and so the notion of plugging into a machine world comes with a feeling that we would be sacrificing something. For many, me being one of them, this sacrifice outweighs the experiences of pleasure which we would gain by plugging in to the machine. 

We want our conscious actions to effect real things, and our social interactions to be with people who are conscious in the same way we are. To lose this, and have our consciousnesses effect only simulations of the seemingly physical things we interact with in this reality, is a massive sacrifice. No matter how horrible or desperate the reality which we exist in now becomes or may be, the sense that we are alive and effecting real states of affairs and living among real conscious beings will always produce resistance to the idea of entering the experience machine, regardless of the benefits of experience that it would provide. 

But I am curious, would anyone think differently that this, and decide to enter the machine reality?    

The second article in a series that I’m writing for a radical left-wing media project, it would be great if you read this/shared it. Thanks.

Here’s a link to an article I wrote for an anti-capitalist project in Scotland. Sorry to anyone who actually cares for the inactivity of this blog, I have been and still am pretty busy, i’l keep posting the odd thing and hopefully get it going more regularly sometime. 

“This man needs medical help if he can’t get through his life without something invisible to believe in.” - Spider Jersualem

Love this comic. 

I think that as long as the human race continues to survive then an event like the singulairty is inevitable. All the technologies needed are possible, it’s just a matter of getting enough resources to the right places. But the chances of humanity surviving long enough to develop complex enough technology to trigger the event are highly questionable. At the moment we are the biggest threat to our own existence.

Also, if the singuarity does occur, societal collspse is an integral part of that. Nothing would be the same. It’s a matter of whether, once we are off the tipping point, we could restucture things properly. As I said in the post, if things continue the way they are, then an event like the singulairty is likely to cause a lot of suffering. Whether the aftermath of it goes well or remains in chaos, everything about the way society works will have been revolutionised.

The Future is Coming Faster Than Ever…                     

Looking at the human race today, with bombs still falling from the sky, poverty still gripping the world, pollution still pumping into the air and people switching off their minds, I have significant doubts about whether or not we are ready to face what the future has in store. But either way it will come.

Advances in technology are propelling us further and further into the future. The singularity is on its way. This is the point when human evolution begins to accelerate at an unimaginable speed, meaning we would become a different species within a tiny period of time, transcending the abilities current humans have by an order of magnitude. Here are some ways it could happen - 

Artificial Intelligence.                                        

The types of machines that have organically evolved on the planet - namely biological life forms - are inherently flawed. We age, we break easily, we get diseases, our brains are limited. It seems highly plausible that, with our awareness of the constraints of our own bodies, we could design better ones. 

The moment that technology becomes better than the human body would well and truly mark the beginning of the singularity. Machines won’t just be replacing our jobs in the supermarket, they will be replacing us all together. We will be faced with the option to merge with machines - bodies that are stronger and don’t break down, meaning life spans of hundreds of years, your own consciousness downloaded into a computer database where it could be expanded to an almost unlimited degree, filled with all current and past human knowledge just like installing software. 

And this is not just science fiction. The technologies needed to achieve such things are being developed - AI gets more complex every year, hand in hand with the world of computers. It is only a matter of time. 

Genetics.

Here is another area which could potentially be responsible for speeding up human evolution faster than ever before, although it would arguably do so on a less revolutionary scale than AI. But this one is coming sooner.

Rather than replace the flawed biological bodies nature has bestowed upon us, we would use cutting edge genetic technology to overcome these flaws. This would include the prevention of junk build up in cells, meaning a cure for ageing. Gene therapy could mean the eradication of cancer, HIV and a host of deadly afflictions. It could mean the implantation of genes that could improve sight, intelligence, sense of smell etc. 

This is not a far distant future either. The lifespan of a mouse has already been extended by 24%. Gene implantation can already make a tobacco plant glow, using firefly genes. With advances in science and technology these developments are only going to get faster, and when they come, life as we know it will be changed forever. 

Fusion Energy.

There is no doubt that, for humanity to really have any shot at reaching the technological heights I have mentioned, we will have to find a clean and massively powerful source of energy. I believe the best candidate for this is fusion. 

A fusion reaction is what takes places in a star, and is the process in which, under high pressures and temperatures, hydrogen atoms smash together and fuse to make helium and give off large quantities of energy. Being able to achieve this would give humanity the power of a sun in the palm of its hand, and the technological advances being able to create this much energy would allow are astronomical. 

It would pave the way for true space exploration, for advancements in Artificial Intelligence, and computing such as mentioned above, make teleportation reality, make time travel a possibility, and allow a boom in social, economic and industrial growth on earth. The successful ability to produce as much clean energy as fusion would allow would surely open to door to the singularity. 

And fusion is being done. It may not be a sustainable reaction because of the massive temperatures required, but it is being done. It has been kept going for around 5-10 minutes at a time, and has already been seen to produce 400 trillion watts of power. It could be a century before large scale fusion plants are commercially up and running, it could be 20 years, but there is no doubt that when it or any power source with similar potential comes around, it will change everything. 

In conclusion…

The prospect of the singularity both deeply excites and frightens me at the same time. I feel that, if we can even get to the point needed for it to happen without wiping ourselves out, then the socioeconomic and political climate will have to be radically different than it is today, or else the most important events in the history of humanity will be painful and bloody rather than proud.

The pessimistic side of me sees a world where, once these technologies are fully established, they will only be available to some members of society - the rich and the elite. The evolutionary principle of survival of the fittest will take hold, and the less financially fortunate people will be left to be out evolved. Unless we can sort out a social construct that unites us as a species and allows fairness, not greed to be the value which we spread, then I fear something along those apocalyptic lines is highly likely. 

But I guess we will just have to see how things happen - either way, there has never been a more exiting time to be alive. 

christinsanity:

To be humbled…

Too often do people forget how small their lives really are.

What caused the big bang?

If you have the time, watch this. 

On Religious Indoctrination in Developing Countries…                                            

When I was in South Africa the poverty I saw in the shanty towns was horrifying, but the most shocking moment of the visit came when we visited a high school, and had to sit through one of their twice weekly Christian sermons. 

It was a full on fundamentalist rant of the sort that would make a church in the deep south of America seem progressive. Seeing these school children, who all live in appallingly unfortunate conditions, being involuntarily exposed to such fire and brimstone nonsense was powerfully disturbing. 

The pastor, in his expensive looking suit and shoes announced that all the children were sinners. That the only way they could be good, and remove the “evil” which he claimed was inside them all was to accept Jesus and live by the bible. He commanded them to give up their own free will and surrender their lives to God. 

The concept of indoctrination is a disgusting one in any circumstance, but it has an added insult to humanity in the setting of poverty ridden countries - places which religious missionaries enjoy targeting for their conversion goals. 

For a start, the people living in such conditions as South Africa are badly educated and living in a variety of fragile home circumstances. These are taken advantage of by preachers, making it easier for them to spread their dark age babble around the poor communities. The preachers come to schools, and so every single student has to hear these doctrines every week, regardless of their own personal beliefs.

These people are told to praise, thank and surrender to god, the supposed creator of all life. These are people who will have had to experience countless family members and friends die from aids and other diseases, and live in fear of the same fate befalling them. People who don’t have enough money to eat, or put a proper roof over their head. To ask these people to give thanks to god, in spite of the sate of their lives, and to call them all evil sinners in spite of how little control they have had over the circumstances they have been born into is of the most extreme abhorrence.

The trap of poverty that people are born into is a viscous one, and one that is almost impossible to break out of. People in these situations must empower themselves in any way possible - education, development of talents and the liberation of free thought.

Religion comes along and says that thinking for yourself is unholy, that complete submission to god is the only path to a good life. This produces an apathetic mindset, that makes people accept their lives as they are, rather than fight to change them. It discourages the very things which will help people escape poverty, and so it is actively prolonging it. 

And finally, the acceptance of Christianity in a country like South Africa is sickeningly ironic, seeing as the white settlers who pillaged and enslaved the native people of Africa did so with a bible in their hands. 

What atheism feels like.

Love thy enemy… whilst supporting torture of thy enemy.

I look forward to more future studies of this nature, that will factually expose the myth that you need religion for morality. I vouch that they will, like this one, indicate the opposite - those without religion are the most morally reasonable among us. 

Fantastic. 

Cornel West hits the nail on the head on how free market ideals have been ingrained in politics for decades, and as a consequence we have the poorest people getting poorer, the richest getting richer and nothing being done to change this.