The ultimate 747 gambit - re-opened

I don't know whether Dawkins would agree with the following version, but here's a reworking of his ultimate 747 gambit into what I think is a good argument that the Abrahamic God probably does not exist. The argument is not meant to be a knock-down one. If we had some reason to believe in disembodied spirits or in substance dualism, or if we could rely on some other source such as revelation, then the argument could be defeated. But in the absence of a convincing independent argument for God's existence, and on the assumption that what we've been finding so far is that we really do live in a disenchanted universe (with no ghosts, spirits, metaphysical dualism and so on), I think it's a cogent argument. It also has the merit that it doesn't assume that metaphysical naturalism is true; it merely assumes the much weaker (and I think highly plausible) claim that we've never yet encountered anything like a spirit ... something capable of intelligence, design, and so on, but with no complexity to it.

The argument won't work with everyone, but it should confirm to a non-believer why the likely non-existence of the Abrahamic God follows from the rest of her worldview (without that worldview having to presume fully-fledged metaphysical naturalism). It should also be successful with a science-oriented religious doubter who is coming to think that we actually do live in a disenchanted universe. If the Universe is, as it were, disenchanted internally, that's a factor in how (un)likely it is that something like God exists.

Here goes, for comments.

---------------

Whenever we look at something that has actually been designed, as opposed to something that has evolved over millions of years by natural selection, we always find that the designer is an incredibly complex being. We know of nothing in the universe that packs more complexity than the human brain, and we know of no process more complex than the brain's functioning as it moves from one massively internally-connected physical state to another. We simply have no experience of anything that is known to have been designed except by a highly complex designer.

Thus, if by analogy with objects such as watches and telescopes, we inferred that the Universe itself is designed, we would also infer that the designer is something incredibly complex. To make any other assumption would be arbitrary.

Once we reach this point, we must ask where the incredibly complex designer came from. The only ways that we have ever observed by which massive complexity comes about are by design or by the simple iterative process of natural selection over vast spans of time (and needing vast volumes of space for there to be conditions amenable for it to happen).

Hence, it is highly likely that the designer of the Universe, if there is one, was either itself designed by something else OR something that evolved. It is inconceivable that such a thing just sprang into existence.

However, both of these possibilities are incompatible with the supposed nature of the Abrahamic God. It follows that all the evidence available to us leads us inexorably to the following (very) likely conclusion: either the Universe is not the product of a designer (in which case the Abrahamic God does not exist, because this being is said to be the designer of the universe) OR the Universe was designed by something that does not match the description of the Abrahamic God (in which case, again, the Abrahamic God, as per theological descriptions, does not exist).

Therefore, it is probable that the Abrahamic God does not exist.

Abrahamic theists are likely to reply that their God is not only the designer and creator of the Universe but also a being that is simple, e.g. with no moving parts, internal linkages, or changing states.

This does seem to be a logically possible state of affairs. However, we have never encountered any entity remotely like this. E.g., we have not encountered the "spirits" that some Abrahamic theists talk about. To claim that God is like something that, in turn, is of a kind we've never actually experienced is a desperate move.

Once again, if we had some independent basis to believe in the existence of such things as spirits, then we'd have a basis to infer that the designer of the universe might be a being like that. But as we've come to know more and more about the Universe, and have failed to encounter disembodied, simple intelligences such as spirits, we find ourselves in a position where we have no basis at all to conclude that the universe as a whole was designed by something like that.

Note that this argument is only probabilistic. It does not say that there cannot be a God like the Abrahamic one - that it is just impossible.

The argument is "merely" that if we could think about the idea of design, without being prejudiced by our familiarity with religious ideas, and if in doing so we relied on our actual experience of the world around us, we would reach the conclusion that the Abrahamic God probably does not exist. If we could think about it clearly, with minds free of prejudice from familiarity with religious ideas, we would conclude that the probability of this being's existence is actually extremely low.

In short, the existence of something like the Abrahamic God is a bare theoretical possibility that's contrary to all the data that we have so far from our actual experience.

JET: New article by Kurmo Konsa

The Journal of Evolution and Technology has published a new article, "Artificialisation Of Culture: Challenges to and from Posthumanism" by Professor Kurmo Konsa, of Tartu University, Estonia.

Professor Konsa's abstract:

Human societies reorganize both the surrounding environment and themselves. As a result, society is becoming more and more artificial. The driving force behind this process is constantly renewing technologies that are developed to increase welfare. Technology has moved from the reorganization of the physical environment to man’s biological body, genome and consciousness. Transhumanist concepts concentrate on the biological and genetic amendment and improvement of the human being. By contrast, questions concerning culture have been insufficiently discussed. Culture, which greatly determines how to be a human being, is something very special to the human species, and appears to have been greatly undervalued in discussions of a possible posthuman future. Very obviously, culture is the factor that determines whether we will reach such a future and whether we will be able to use all the opportunities that it would offer to us. This study deals with culture from the viewpoint of artificialisation, and indicates some of the possibilities for creating artificial cultures.

What level of Hell are you?

In my case:

The Dante's Inferno Test has banished you to the Second Level of Hell!

Here is how you matched up against all the levels:
Level | Score
Purgatory | Very Low
Level 1 - Limbo | Very Low
Level 2 | Very High
Level 3 | Moderate
Level 4 | Moderate
Level 5 | Moderate
Level 6 - The City of Dis | Very High
Level 7 | High
Level 8- the Malebolge | High
Level 9 - Cocytus | Low

Level descriptions: http://www.4degreez.com/misc/dante-inferno-information.html
Take the test: http://www.4degreez.com/misc/dante-inferno-test.mv

The Second Level is described like this:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second Level of Hell

You have come to a place mute of all light, where the wind bellows as the sea does in a tempest. This is the realm where the lustful spend eternity. Here, sinners are blown around endlessly by the unforgiving winds of unquenchable desire as punishment for their transgressions. The infernal hurricane that never rests hurtles the spirits onward in its rapine, whirling them round, and smiting, it molests them. You have betrayed reason at the behest of your appetite for pleasure, and so here you are doomed to remain. Cleopatra and Helen of Troy are two that share in your fate.

The cult of misery always hard at work

I see that his holiness Pope Benedict, wants to introduce a whole new batch of mortal sins, such as the sin of engaging in morally debatable genetic research. It's reported in The Times, together with some spirited discussion.

It's nice to know that the Church is hard at work for our souls - always dreaming up new sins for us to worry about and new rationalisations for attacking our freedoms. Personally, I think it's reprehensible to bring up innocent children in what amounts to a cult of misery, or to teach them to accord moral authority to popes, priests, pastors, preachers, presbyters, and other such pretenders. It's not exactly a sin, though, since "sin" implies a deity to sin against, and I haven't noticed any deities around these parts of late.

Wheel of friends

Some time back, I queried the value of social sites such as Facebook, but for the moment at least I'm won over. I do like this wheel of friends, displaying my Facebook friends and how they are connected among themselves (click on the image to get a greatly enlarged and legible version). Only a small number are not connected with any others in the circle.

I've found that Facebook actually is quite good for networking, as long as the people you want to network with are actually there and you already have at least some connection with them, however tenuous. Also, it's almost too tempting as a place to hang out with people whom you simply like.

What's notable is that most of my very close friends are not there (but there are some exceptions ... you know who you are, I hope; kisses to you). Likewise the colleagues with whom I work most closely, to the extent that it's a different group, are generally not there (but again with exceptions; the transhumanist/technoprogressive push is especially well-represented on Facebook in general, and within my wheel).

Overall, it's worthwhile so far - if you're close to me as a friend, or colleague, or both, do think about joining and kind of hooking up with me.

Bulldozers tear down giant religious teapot

We're not talking here about Russell's teapot, which was described like this by Bertrand Russell:

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

No, this was an actual Earth-bound giant teapot, located in Malaysia. As this story in The Telegraph (UK) explains, it was a prominent cult object related to the teachings of the Sky Kingdom. The image that the paper has published on its site suggests that the teapot was rather a fine structure ... a little kitsch maybe, but quite handsome as teapots go.

The Telegraph story states that:

About 40 workers with bulldozers and lorries destroyed the "subversive" teapot and other symbols of the pan-religious Sky Kingdom, in Terengannu state. An assembly hall, a concrete boat and a temple-like structure that was under construction were also demolished.

Now, sometimes when I read about such, er, crackpot actions as constructing or destroying giant teapots on religious grounds, I worry that I'm being spoofed. It seems, however, that this is a genuine story. Indeed, the giant teapot was even a tourist attraction:

Members and visitors to the commune believe that water from the teapot, which poured into the giant vase, held purifying powers. They follow the teaching of Ariffin Mohammed, 65, better known as Ayah ("Master") Pin, who holds that every religion is equally valid and that anyone can find his or her own path to God. His settlement has been a popular destination for Muslim, Chinese and Indian Malaysians, as well as foreign tourists.

Although the authorities explained the destruction as being because of some kind of zoning regulations, since supposedly "inappropriate buildings had been constructed on agricultural land", the destruction has been welcomed, and had been urged, by Islamist activists. These tolerant, thoughtful adherents of the religion of peace objected to the apostasy (or is it heresy?) of the cult's leader, since Ayah Pin claims to have direct access to God, contrary to Muslim teachings.

Really, will all this religious madness never end? Thank Zeus I'm an atheist.

Death of Gary Gygax (1938 - 2008)

It's been announced in various places that Gary Gygax, the co-creator of Dungeons & Dragons died today. According to the Wikipedia entry in its current form, he'd been in poor health, having suffered multiple strokes and a near-fatal heart attack.

I never managed to get into D&D, even though a dear friend bought me a set way back in the past, or, indeed, the whole adventure gaming thing that it inspired. But there's no doubt that Gygax was a hugely important figure ... the influence of his work as a game designer and an entrepreneur in the gaming industry has been incalculable, not only on gaming itself, but on every entertainment medium known to modern civilisation.

This is the passing of a giant.

Dreaming Again - list of stories and authors

I've just received an email from Jack Dann with an update on his new anthology of speculative fiction, Dreaming Again. The scheduled publication date from HarperCollins Australia is July 2008.

As Jack says, Dreaming Again is going to be a terrific, knock-out, definitive, cutting-edge collection—because of ... ahem ... the work of its contributors, like me.

Here's the table of contents:

"Introduction: Dreaming Again"
JACK DANN

"Old Friends"
GARTH NIX

"A Guided Tour In the Kingdom of the Dead"
RICHARD HARLAND

"This Is My Blood"
BEN FRANCISCO and CHRIS LYNCH

"Nightship"
KIM WESTWOOD

"The Fooly"
TERRY DOWLING

"Neverland Blues"
ADAM BROWN

"The Jacaranda Wife"
A. G. SLATTER

"The Constant Past"
SEAN MCMULLEN

"The Forest"
KIM WILKINS

"Robots and Zombies, Inc."
LUCY SUSSEX

"This Way to the Exit"
SARA DOUGLASS

"Grimes and the Gaijin Daimyo"
A. BERTRAM CHANDLER

"Lure"
PAUL COLLINS

"The Empire"
SIMON BROWN

"Lakeside"
CHRISTOPHER GREEN

"Trolls’ Night Out"
JENNY BLACKFORD

"The Rest Is Silence"
AARON STERNS

"Smoking, Waiting For the Dawn"
JASON NAHRUNG

"The Lanes of Camberwell"
CECILIA DART-THORNTON

"Lost Arts"
STEPHEN DEDMAN

"Undead Camels Ate Their Flesh"
JASON FISCHER

"Europa"
CECILY SCUTT

"Riding On the Q-ball"
"ROSALEEN LOVE"

"In From the Snow"
LEE BATTERSBY

"The Lost Property Room"
TRUDI CANAVAN

"Heere Be Monsters"
JOHN BIRMINGHAM

"Purgatory"
ROWENA CORY DANIELLS

"Manannan’s Children"
RUSSELL BLACKFORD

"The Fifth Star in the Southern Cross"
MARGO LANAGAN

"Twilight in Caeli-Amur"
RJURIK DAVIDSON

"Paradise Design’d"
JANEEN WEBB

"The New Deal"
TRENT JAMIESON

"Conquist"
DIRK STRASSER

"The Last Great House of Isla Tortuga"
PETER M. BALL

"Perchance To Dream"
ISOBELLE CARMODY


To be honest, the only story that I've yet read - apart from my own - is Jenny's "Trolls' Night Out", but I can tell you without hesitation that that particular story is wacky, brilliant, funny ... and you must read it.

Beyond that, well, it's a wonderful line-up that Jack has assembled. The book is surely destined to be one of the major anthologies of the year, internationally. It's predecessor, Dreaming Down-Under, won the World Fantasy Award, and it's hard to believe that a huge volume such as this looks like being, with this sort of quality line-up won't at least go close.

I look forward to getting my hands on a copy.

IWD: A day of protest against sexual apartheid

This looks like it's worth your support.

Maryam Namazie blogs that: The hundredth anniversary of March 8, International Women’s Day, is on its way. On this momentous occasion, we proclaim 2008 as the year against sexual apartheid. We call on people everywhere to condemn sexual apartheid and the political Islamic movement that perpetrates it, and to support egalitarian movements that courageously challenge it.

If you go to Maryam's blog, you'll see how you can support a declaration that says as follows:

We, the undersigned, unequivocally oppose sexual apartheid and the subjugation of millions of women living under Islamic rules and laws.

We condemn regimes and the political Islamic movement that perpetrate sexual apartheid, including in Iran.

We support the legitimate struggle of millions of women and men for freedom, equality and universal rights.

Sexual apartheid, like racial apartheid, has no place in the 21 century.

I can sign my name to that, and I will.

All my friends are left-libertarians - an update

Need I say more?