I was recommended this book by a friend and it is above and beyond the most relevant address of the question of religion I have so far encountered. George Smith sets out to argue that the notion of a god in general, and the god of Christianity in particular, cannot be supported rationally. Other authors of atheist books have addressed the social and historical impact of religion, but none have gone straight to the foundation of religion in order to refute its logical premises. To follow Smith's reasoning takes effort, but he is persuasive.

After discussing the concept of god in the most general sense, Smith proceeds to show that Christianity is stacked high with self contradictions in its various doctrines, all of which makes it even more absurd (if one can say such a thing) than merely the idea of a god itself. The central problem in knowing god is that of assigning attributes to an inherently supernatural and transcendental (that is to say unknowable) being. Either a proposition is unknowable or it isn't. It makes no sense to accept the premise of unknowabability only to then assign attributes that are contingent upon knowability. Christianity attempts to jump the fence by making all attributes infinite. Instead of temporal he is eternal. Instead of finite he is infinite. The obvious problem is that the meaning of such attributes is predicated upon finiteness. To make an attribute infinite is to make it meaningless. So all that can be accomplished is to assign unintelligible attributes to an unintelligible being. This is most characteristic of the Christian doctrine, which essentially drapes layers of rhetoric in order to create the illusion of a god that is effectively not distinguishable from nothing at all.

Disclaimer: Depending on your definition of atheism and agnosticism, I may actually be advocating agnosticism in this text. These two terms have any number of definitions and what follows simply reflects my perception of them. The point is not that one term is better than the other. What I'm trying to argue is simply that one type of thought process associated with agnosticism is not particularly useful.

The more I think about agnosticism the more I think it's just the politically correct face of atheism. It's a way to say "Hey, listen guys, you say you know god exists, and we're skeptical. But that doesn't imply we think we're better than you, we just think it's impossible to know at all." That is the gist of it, but does it really differ from the atheist position in any important way? I don't think it does.

Does an agnostic believe in god? If he did he would be a believer. Which he isn't. So the answer is no. Of course, the agnostic slogan is "I don't know", but in a question of belief, there is no such thing. There is no way to not know if you believe in something. You either believe or you don't, and if you "don't know" that means you don't. You fail to give a positive answer.

The problem with agnosticism is that it gets you into meaningless statements about probability. An agnostic who adamantly repeats "I don't know" is likely to be seen as low hanging fruit for believers and unbelievers alike. "Okay then, what do you think is more likely?" Agnostics in their drive to be even handed get pushed into saying that both are 'equally likely'. Well, what on earth does that mean? Is that a statement about statistical probability? So in a repeatable experiment where the universe is created god appears 50% of the time? That's absurd reasoning. We are not talking about something measurable and therefore there is no way to say 'how likely' it is.

Wrong question, wrong answer

A philosopher once said "as a philosopher it is not that I can produce more answers, but I can make sure we don't ask the wrong questions".

Religious people claim to know with absolute certainty that god exists. And thus they seek the equivalent answer from the unbeliever. "Can you say with absolute certainty that god does not exist?" It is the wrong question. And to see why we need only ask a different, obvious, question. "Is there anything at all you believe with absolute certainty?" Again, the answer is no.

What does 'absolute certainty' even mean? It would have to mean, I think, that notwithstanding circumstances you know nothing about, your faith would still hold. If nothing else, that strikes me as just about the most foolish statement imaginable. Religious people claim to have this certainty, and that's their business.

In any case, we know that life is unpredictable, and it is possible that anything one has established as knowledge may be overturned. Is there any knowledge at all you have that holds beyond the constraints of sensory perception and reason? No, there isn't. Everything is theoretically subject to change.

So why on earth should I have to answer the question of god to a greater degree of certainty than I have about any other question in life? Agnosticism exists only because we need an answer to this incorrect question.

Atheism is the realization that the question is incorrect. An unbeliever simply does not have an equivalent answer to the question of absolute certainty. Atheism is not about absolute certainty, it is about giving an answer to a question that has a reasonable answer. Does god exist? No. Do you know this with absolute certainty? Irrelevant. I know god doesn't exist with the same certainty that I know Superman doesn't exist, and that's perfectly sufficient.

Atheism is the realization that the difference between a hypothetical "no" and a practical "no" isn't worth dwelling on. Because when it comes down to choosing how to live life, there is no agnostic option. You either live your life according to religious observance or you don't. No agnostic will sit in the 'waiting room' until the answer comes in. Thus there is no practical difference between the agnostic and the atheist, only a theoretical one.

This also resolves the misunderstanding that "atheism is faith just like theism". Atheists do not have an equivalent belief, that is what the a in atheism means.

Political correctness

How does political correctness factor into it? I think the answer is obvious. Religion is such a big issue in our culture that we have the intuition not to take these questions lightly. Religion is not just an issue of faith, it's also a question of world view, of social institution, of tradition, of family ties. To reject the god hypothesis is to reject religion, because what sensible religious observance could follow if you eliminate the cornerstone of religion itself? And to reject religion is to make a big life decision.

That is the paradox of the god question. The fallout may be complicated, but the question isn't. So people hesitate to say what they would so easily say if it wasn't for the collateral damage.

To say "I don't know" to a question of belief, I think, is to say "I don't believe, but I'm not sure what the consequences are going to be". We are not so hesitant to answer other questions of faith. Do people say "wait a minute, you can't be dead certain that Superman doesn't exist"? Actually, I can. He's a fictional character from a comic book. Do I need to be more guarded in my reasoning? No, I don't. I'm never going to get a more useful answer than "no".

Are you still on the fence about Santa Claus? Of course not. Because there is no reason not to say just say "no".

I decided to brush dust off this old chestnut that I've seen trotted around recently:

When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing— they believe in anything. ~ G. K. Chesterton

People seem to be using this rationale as a warning. "Now listen, if you stop believing in god, bad things could happen." And apparently the same people insist that it's true. Supposedly new age medicine is on the rise, people join various cults, the world seems to be acting more gullible on the whole. Perhaps.

But let's go back to Chesterton. Let's see what he's saying there. And this is not just my reading of it, this is how I perceive people are interpreting his statement to make a point:

When people stop believing in god they start searching for something else to believe. And they end up believing the most ridiculous things, they turn to superstition.

On the face of it, that seems like an insightful observation. But when you think about it for a minute.. what could be more ridiculous than god? I mean if you believe that story, how much more gullible could you get? Superstition? You mean like supernatural beings?

You know how people say "don't do drugs, they'll mess you up"? I wouldn't know, because I've never taken any. But it seems to me people are messed up already without the drugs.

The only difference between religion and your run-of-the-mill superstition is that religion is institutionalized. It is the accepted (or if you will, tolerated) superstition. It's the emperor's new clothes. It's Santa Claus. It's "sssh don't say it out loud, those people over there still believe it".

Chesterton was half right. People will believe anything. They do this not after rejecting god, but from the very beginning. And god is very much a part of of this "anything".

We see this again and again, how easy it is to trick people into doing things that are not in their best interest. How advertising makes us desire things we don't really want. How phishing attacks get people to give up their password by telling them lies. It's absolutely true. This is our weakness, and everyone is vulnerable.

I do it myself. I somehow got this idea that I have an impact on the results of my team. The situation is like this. I'm not watching the game, and I don't even know there is a game underway. So I just randomly check the scores to see if anything is happening and I notice my team is playing. If I then start following the scores until the end it often seems like a positive starting point turns into a bad result. What started out as a lead results in a draw or loss. I seem to have a bad impact. So what do I do about it? I don't follow it. I try to put it out of my mind and just check the score when it's all over. (Inevitably, of course, I forget. And I check before the game is over, by which time it might be a draw, so that just fuels the superstition.)

So what is that? It's superstition, plain and simple. Of course, I know that I don't have any effect on the result. And I would never try to suggest to someone that it's better not to check the scores underway lest you impact the result. It's totally irrational. But I still kind of believe this, my behavior proves that I do.

Superstition is a common thing, a lot of people have one thing or another that they kind of secretely believe despite knowing better. It's who we are. But to say that one man's superstition is gullibility, while another's is virtue? Let's cut the crap.

We are accustomed to ethical systems where rules apply universally to everyone. Such systems are everywhere: the legal system of every country, road regulations, the rules of just about every social organization. Universal rules are the only practical solution to the problem of anarchy in most cases. They are also based on the assumption that the greatest order and justice will be achieved through universality.

Ethics

To see why this is a flawed assumption you need look no further than the classic teen movie about the kid who gets bullied. The standard response from the authorities is always the same one: "report it to us, we will fix the problem". So they sit down the bully for a talking to, and of course it changes nothing because the intervention is too light, it has no effect on him. Why doesn't it? Because the bully [in the movie] is a lot more self confident than the average kid, so an intervention that would have taken effect on most kids doesn't make a dent in him. The guiding principle is that the an action has a universal appropriate response associated with it.

Parents discover the same thing. The ideal model is that all their kids get the same treatment and play by the same rules. No preference for one over the other. But the reality is that kids are different, and they need different stimuli. A kid who's thick skinned won't respond to a light reprimand, whereas a sensitive kid will be overwhelmed by the same harsh beat down that would have been appropriate for his robust sibling. One size does not fit all.

Most clearcut of all are monetary incentives. If one guy gets pulled over for speeding in a beat up old car worth 1000 bucks and another guy gets caught in a 100,000 sports car, should they pay the same fine? In the interest of fairness, yes. But if you're trying to prevent speeding, then each should get a fine that will be high enough to set a sufficient incentive. If you make them both pay 100 then the guy in the sports car doesn't even notice it and let's get real, people don't buy sports cars out of a strong dedication to the speed limit.

Universal rules are in a sense the least bad solution. And people intuitively accept them, because even as they feel judged harshly they can take solace in the fact that everyone gets the same treatment for the same infraction. But that doesn't mean universality promotes that most harmony. Sometimes people even act out in protest against being treated as replaceable cogs in a machine, and all it takes to pacify them is a little individual attention.

Academic performance

Another area where universal standards rule is academic testing. The idea is that if you give every student the same test then you can determine how well each person has absorbed the same material. Of course, what you end up measuring in part is test taking aptitude. But there is a more serious problem with this. Ideally, what you would like to measure is not so much knowledge of this specific material, which may be obsolete a few years down the road. Instead, what a potential employer would be interested in is learning aptitude. And taking it one step further, perhaps even the aptitude to learn how to learn.

To clarify this point, suppose you are taking a class on discrete mathematics. It's entirely possible that you won't ever find a use for this knowledge in your professional life, so to determine your knowledge of discrete math isn't particularly interesting. What's more interesting is to have some metric of how successful your learning process was. So if you knew all the material beforehand, you would score a zero. And if you think about it, that is a far more just way to measure performance. A student with no relevant background would get credit for the work he had to put in to compensate for his deficit.

Ruby is a great language, but one thing it needs is process. And what seems to suffer most from this is documentation.

1. Ruby’s not ready
2. Ruby 1.9.1 released