Archive for April, 2008

April 6th, 2008

On being open minded

There seems to be a lot of confusion about what constitutes an open mind.  Theists claim atheists aren’t open minded because we won’t accept the premise that gods exist.  Conspiracy believers accuse the skeptical of being closed minded when they question the conspiracy stories.  People who don’t believe in Big Foot or Nessy are called closed minded.

Being open minded does not require us to automatically accept every thought that enters our head, believe every notion floated by anyone, accept the possibility of even the most outlandish idea.

To be open minded is to be willing to be convinced.  It’s to be willing to set aside preconceived notions in the face of factual evidence to the contrary.  Being open minded means that a person is willing to change their mind when presented with an adequate reason to do so.

The evidence or argument that will sway an open minded person has to meet certain qualifications, though.  It obviously needs to be convincing and irrefutable.  It needs to be logical and consistent with the reality we know.  It must be practical, sensible, possible and rational.

To be closed minded is to presume an unfounded assumption and cling desperately to it even when provided sufficiently contrary evidence.

If you expect me to believe in gods or Big Foot based on your word or any other subjective opinion, I’m not being closed minded in refusing to do so.  I’m remaining open minded about the concept until adequate evidence is provided.  I’m more than willing to be convinced, but the evidence required to convince me has to be convincing.   The onus is on all those who want me to believe as they do to provide a reason for me to believe, and evidence sufficient to convince me.

Some will contend that agnosticism is the ultimate open mindedness.  That’s not true.  Huxley proposed agnosticism as a means to question perceptions, not as a position to maintain.

Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, ‘Try all things, hold fast by that which is good’; it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him, it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him. (Agnosticism,” 1889)

It does not imply that the most honest position to take is no position.  It means that you accept that for which, at this moment, you have sufficient evidence, while being willing to amend your position should convincing evidence contrary to yours appear.

I’m not an agnostic, I’m an atheist.  No theist, no believer in any god or gods, has provided sufficient evidence to convince me that their notions about gods are true.   I don’t believe in Big Foot or Nessy, but just like gods, I’m willing to be convinced.  Provide irrefutable evidence to support the idea that these creatures are real and I’ll accept that.  I’m not set against the idea of gods or the Loch Ness Monster.  I just see no reason to believe in them based on the current state of evidence put forth in their defense.

Jack Eber Carlson

CategoryFree Thought, Philosophy | Comment11 Comments »

Tags:
April 5th, 2008

Two completely different ways of looking at the world

For most of us in the Western world, challenging religion and advocating free thought are reasonably risk-free activities. One has to admire the courage of Syrian poet Adonis, advocating those ideals while delivering the keynote address at the ‘Innovation in Islam’ conference.

“If a religion cannot offer human beings free thinking and freedom, there is no benefit in continuing to be part of it, Syrian poet Adonis said yesterday.

What can emanate from a faith where people are made to believe that everything has been said and no more inquisitiveness or reasoning is required. A society that ceases to think freely is an antipode to existence,” he said.

“Islam today is nothing but similar to Christian theology except with a turban. Muslims can either continue the concept of one Umma (Nation) – which has been failing – or they can join the concept of humanism, that liberates them from the rules of fiqh and allows total equality for all citizens,” remarked Adonis.

“Innovations cannot be made in a religion. Only human intellect makes it possible,” he said, and “that can only come when Muslims start to question and reason again. The religion and politics must be separated.”

“Look at the Arab history, intellectual dealing, religious text, upheavals and all the events until the end of the first half of the Hijri century, during which four Rightly-Guided Caliphs were murdered – one supposedly poisoned. Then Baghdad declines and falls in 1228, gets taken over by Ottomans, followed by another takeover by Western civilisation that continues to be the case until today,” he said.

“During this time, while we should have learned from the age of Renaissance – allowing for more vision and adaptations – we went back to traditions and the result is a current Islamic fundamentalism, that people say lays a siege on human culture. Its like allowing the people to ‘look’ but not ‘join’,” he said.
Adonis, also drew great parallels between religious text and poetry, calling the former “a text that was said once and forever”, while the latter “an innovative process, allowing the poet to present new words and relations between man and the universe”.

“Essence of innovation in poetic terms means to reject the preconceived notions, while essence of innovation in religious terms means not to reject the sacred text. The text can be explained and interpreted but not questioned,” he said.

“The truth in poetry is relative and innovation in it changes with time, whereas religion never changes. That makes religion an answer, while poetry a question – thus the incompatibility. One requires submission, dictation and faith, the other requires reasoning and exploring. Two completely different ways of looking at the world,” he added.

(Source)

CategoryFree Thought, International | CommentNo Comments »

Tags:
April 5th, 2008

Science Sunday: Intelligent Design Goes to the Movies

Over at Colorado Confidential, Dan Whipple provides an enlightening review of Ben Stein’s Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.  The movie’s subtitle ought to be posted on the door of every theater showing this pseudo-documentary.

 …the film is so intellectually garbled it’s hard to summarize. “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” is Summa Theologica compared to “Expelled.”

“Expelled” trots out several martyrs to the Darwinist inquisition. The poster boy is Richard Sternberg, whom the movie says was ousted from his position at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, and from his editorship of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington when he published in that publication a peer-reviewed article of scientific evidence that supports intelligent design. There is some dramatic if unfocused footage of Ben Stein being denied admission to the upper floors of the Smithsonian by a security guard when he tries to grill muckety-mucks at the museum about these injustices.

This repression of scientific thought, we can all agree, is horrible if true. But it isn’t true.

This is a dispute among academics. Faults on both sides, I’m sure. Perhaps because there is so little at stake in these fights, they are among the most vicious known to political man. A lot of cyber-ink was spilled over the Steinberg tussle long before Ben Stein got around to it. You can read Sternberg’s version of his persecution here and  a non-ID rebuttal here. It’s even made Wikipedia, which has got to be the high water mark for a bureaucratic pissing match.

The allegations made in “Expelled” are wrong. Sternberg never worked for the Smithsonian, so the Smithsonian couldn’t threaten his job there. He was a visiting scholar with research privileges, assigned an office. He still has both the office and the research privileges. He wasn’t deprived of his editorship. His term as editor had expired so he was stepping down anyway in favor of another editor when the controversial ID article was published.

In short, contrary to the assertions in “Expelled,” Sternberg suffered no harm whatever from the dustup. Which is not to say that he wasn’t criticized. He was. Harshly, rudely and sometimes childishly by fellow scientists. But rough and tumble argument is part of the world of science, whether you’re studying intelligent design, string theory or evolutionary biology.

There are three or four other cases explored in “Expelled,” all of which are presented in black-and-white terms as anti-ID intellectual repression by a Darwinist cabal. Closer examination of the specifics of each reveals pretty ordinary academic backbiting.

After a half hour or so, “Expelled” wanders off to blame the theory of evolution for Communism, the Berlin Wall, Fascism, the Holocaust, atheism and Planned Parenthood. One of the few funny parts of the film, though, is Stein’s interview with British philosopher of science Richard Dawkins. Dawkins’ best-selling book The God Delusion is a clarion call for atheism, making him a bete-noire of the religious right. Ben Stein, marshalling the intellectual resources of Ferris Bueller’s boring teacher, gets the better of him. Dawkins comes out of it looking pretty silly.

There are so many topics picked up, misrepresented and abandoned unresolved by “Expelled” that it is impossible to deal with them all. But they are typical of the intellectual dishonesty of the creationist-Intelligent Design cabal that wants to have this bankrupt hypothesis taught in the public schools.

For instance, the assumption by IDers is that if neo-Darwinian evolution can be shown to be largely incorrect, ID and creationism triumph. But this isn’t so. There are other hypotheses besides design or God or Darwin that could replace it, if they were supported by the evidence. The trouble is that only evolution is so supported. “Expelled” doesn’t try to build up a coherent alternative theory. It simply bashes evolution.

If you’ve had a chance to preview this movie, please leave a comment with your impressions of it.

CategoryIn the News, Science | CommentNo Comments »

Tags: