Author: Ophelia Benson

  • Guardian interviews Tim Flannery

    “For 20 years after his return from the Beagle voyage, [Darwin] sat on what he knew were astonishing discoveries.” That’s a myth.

  • Can we be Good without believing in God?

    Can human beings be good without leaning on a god or dogma? Can we be moral without being religious? The answer to these questions is an unequivocal “Yes”. Human beings indeed do not need to believe in a deity or to belong to any religion in order to be good or to do good. The whole idea of the good-of doing good-preceded the idea of a god and religion. In fact the entity called god is alien to the equation of human goodness and morality.

    We, humans, do not need to belong to any religion in order to have a sense of moral right or wrong. Moral rectitude is natural, and not predicated on supernatural faith. Morality is a product of social, not spiritual interaction. Unfortunately, the mistaken idea that humans cannot be good without professing a belief in the ‘supreme being’ or without belonging to a religion is one that is dominant in most societies across the world. This mistaken idea is largely responsible for lack of progress in those  areas of human life where religions exercise moral authority.

    Now how did we, humans, come about this erroneous notion that we cannot be good without believing in god? Human beings have the natural capacity to do good and evil. We are born with these inherent tendencies. They were not thrust on us from above or instilled in us as a result of whatever must have transpired in the mythical garden of Eden. We do not know about good and evil because Adam and Eve disobeyed god by eating the ‘Forbidden Fruit’.

    The whole idea of doing good preceded the idea of a god. Before religions started, human beings were doing good. Human beings performed good deeds not to please god or to go to paradise as we are made to understand today. They did good for reasons unconnected with these religious injunctions. So I am deeply persuaded that humans came about the idea of god in their efforts to understand the good, explain what is good, what ought to be done and encourage what is good and doing good. Also humans came about the idea of the devil in their primitive attempts to understand what is evil, explain the problem of evil and why evil deeds exist and are committed and to discourage doing evil or harm to oneself or to others.

    Generally human beings are awed and elated, they feel happy and joyous when they are at the receiving end of any act of goodness, kindness and love. And they always want to encourage such acts. Also human beings feel pain. They feel hurt and traumatized when they are at the receiving end of any act of evil, hatred or cruelty. And they always want to discourage all evil deeds. This is because what is good is good not because what is good is directed or revealed by god. And what is evil is evil not because what is evil is sanctioned by the devil.

    So, in their primitive attempts to encourage what is good, humans divinized goodness. They created god and made god the epitome of the good, that is, goodness personified. They created heaven – a place for the good – where god – the epitome of goodness – resides waiting to reward all good-doers and punish eternally all evil-doers.

    Also in their efforts to understand evil and explain what is evil, and discourage doing evil, humans created the devil, demonized evil and made satan the epitome of evil – evil personified. Humans created hell where they believe the devil presides along with all evil-doers burning eternally. They made heaven to look attractive and hell so scary. They instituted morality driven by fear- the fear of going to Hell. They instituted the idea of doing good for heaven’s sake.

    Hence many people do good because they don’t want to burn eternally in Hell, because they want to inherit paradise when they are dead.Not really because they want to do good.  Religions created myths and false stories to encourage doing good and to discourage doing evil. They created doctrines and dogmas based on these mythical origins, understanding and explanations of good and evil. Religions compiled these mythical stories into books and called them the word of god – the revealed word of god which everyone is expected to believe without doubt. That’s how religions hijacked morality. That’s how religions sacrificed humanity on the altar of divinity. That’s how the religious idea of god corrupted the human sense of the good.

    Religions habitually indoctrinate and brainwash people from childhood with their primitive, parochial and mistaken sense of good and morality. Hence in most societies across the world people erroneously believe that professing a religion is necessary for one to be moral, when in actual fact this is not the case. We don’t need to believe in god to be happy and to make others happy. We don’t need to believe in god to perform any act of kindness. We do not need to be religious to care for our children, parents, family and community members, friends and the aged. People have been caring for each other since before religions started. It is not a deity that tells us to care for the needy, give to the poor or provide assistance to victims of any mishap or disaster. It is not being religious that makes us humanitarian. Doing good is natural to us humans, not supernaturally induced as many would make us understand. So people can be good without believing in god. Human beings can achieve moral excellence without belonging to any religion. Faith in god is not a moral imperative.

  • It does no work because it purportedly does all work

    Anthony Grayling said more about this possibility of evidence for god question.

    I don’t think that every effort has been made to look for evidence and none has turned up…You and Richard think it’s an empirical matter whether there are deities (or fairies? goblins? consider why you think the latter are zoological non-starters) and I think it’s a matter of coherence of the concept…

    And, I find, so do I. The more I think about it the more I think that.

    The point is that ‘god’ is not like ‘ether’ – it is not amenable to empirical investigation, and does not occupy a slot in some systematic framework of thinking about the world that might be improved on in the light of better theory or observation. It does no work because it purportedly does all work; like a contradiction it entails anything whatever; it is consistent with all evidence and none.

    Exactly! By which I mean, that’s what I would have said if only I’d thought of it. It does no work because it purportedly does all work; that’s beautiful, and exact.

    But ‘god’ is not like ‘yeti’ (which might – so to say: yet? – be found romping about the Himalayas), it is like ‘square circle’. Trying to explain to someone who thinks that ‘god’ is like ‘yeti’ (namely, you) let alone to someone who thinks ‘god’ is like ‘Barack Obama’ (names an actual being, as Christians and Muslims do) that it is actually not like ‘yeti’ but  like ‘square circle’ and that nothing can count as evidence for square circles, is harder work for ‘god’ than ‘square circle’ only because religious folk have been squaring the circle for so long!

    Furthermore, “god” is like square circles and round triangles and octagonal hexagons and flat cubes and married bachelors. There are different versions of god, to say the least, and there is no univerally agreed set of minimal items that belong on the god-list, so there is no core “god” concept that we can try to match to possible evidence.

    It’s dead easy to imagine evidence of a yeti. That wouldn’t even surprise me much, because the Himalayas are difficult terrain, and some animals are very good at hiding, and there is more than one species of great ape.

    It’s also easy to imagine evidence of a species that would be superior to humans. That’s child’s play. But “god” is a whole different territory, with built-in hand-wavy stuff that make it as Anthony says consistent with all evidence and none. It’s Intelligently Designed that way.

  • Can the brain explain your mind?

    Is thinking what the brain does in the way that walking is what the body does? Colin McGinn asks.

  • Defamation Bill intended to end libel tourism

    The draft Defamation Bill will propose a new defence of “honest opinion.” It’s about time!

  • Pakistan: Xian convicted of “blasphemy” dies in prison

    Qamar David was serving a life sentence for insulting the Koran and Muhammad.

  • Cairo: the army is above the nation, especially women

    11 women arrested in Tahrir square were stripped and forcibly examined to determine whether they were virgins.

  • The Italian government swears the cross is neutral

    A gathering place for Jew and Gentile, believer and non-believer. The most ecumenical goddamn thing you ever saw. How can you not just love it?

  • Thomas Nagel reviews David Brooks

    Brooks seems willing to take seriously any claim by a cognitive scientist, however idiotic.

  • Senegal, Mali villages to ban female genital mutilation

    Representatives of almost 90 villages in Senegal and Mali agreed to ban FGM at a ceremony in eastern Senegal, a local NGO said Monday.

  • More on “what is this god thing anyway?”

    Jerry Coyne is discussing the “what would you consider evidence” question with Anthony Grayling. Anthony says what makes the whole enterprise nonsensical from the start:

    on the standard definition of an infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent etc being – on inspection  such a concept collapses into contradiction and absurdity; as omnipotent, god can eat himself for breakfast…as omniscient it knows the world it  created will cause immense suffering through tsunamis and earthquakes, and therefore has willed that suffering, which contradicts the benevolence claim…etc etc…

    Which it seems to me is undeniable, and relevant. What could be evidence for the existence of the usual normal mainstream “God”? Given that the usual normal mainstream “God” is an absurdity, it’s not even possible to know what would be evidence that it existed.

    It’s also not possible to know what would be evidence that human beings could even detect. What evidence could we detect that “God” is eternal, for instance? What could show that, to us?

    There are quite a few different versions of God, and they don’t combine into a nice stew or pot pourri or tapestry; they fight with each other. Evidence for one would be evidence for not-another.

    I can imagine evidence for a local earth-based god or gods, like the Greek gods. They paid visits now and then, and they were very recognizable people. The omni-being is a whole different category, and evidence for it strikes me as being impossible.

  • No freedom from religion for you

    Marc Alan di Martino told me an Italian judge had been fired for refusing to work under a crucifix. Yes really. There’s no reporting on it in English; all I could find was a blog post by…well, a theology-fan. The blogger could be writing approvingly.

    Italy’s highest court of appeal — the Cassation Court — confirmed today (March 14, 2011) the sacking of a judge who refused to hear cases with the crucifix in the courtroom, according to the Life In Italy website…

    The CSM said in its ruling that Tosti – who is a Jew – was guilty of refusing to do his job in the Marche town of Camerino from May 2005 to January 2006, when he withdrew from 15 hearings to contest the presence of the cross displayed in the courtroom.

    It’s arbitrary, but at least in English “a Jew” sounds different from “Jewish,” and not in a good way. The blogger may not have meant it that way – but it sounds…well, you probably know how it sounds.

    In its ruling today, the Cassation Court said that CSM was wholly “correct” and rejected Tosti’s argument that the presence of crosses was a threat to freedom of religion and conscience.

    Because…? Because it doesn’t stand for religion and thus, in a courtroom, for theocracy? Because it doesn’t stand for one particular religion, and thus, in a courtroom, cast the judge as an outsider at best? Because it’s entirely neutral and has no meaning for atheists and other non-Christians? Because it doesn’t claim to stand for “God” and thus, in a courtroom, make secular law subordinate?

    I don’t know. I look forward to finding out. I think Marc will be telling us more.

    Update: Terry Sanderson alerted us to background from the NSS.

  • MP wants “responsible neutrality” on honor killing

     Liberal MP Justin Trudeau said the government should not call honour killings “barbaric” in a study guide for would-be Canadian citizens.

  • Ben Goldacre on science journalism

    “Having a science degree” is partly just a proxy for “caring enough about science generally that you also care about not getting stuff completely wrong.”

  • Problems in science journalism

    We ought to have a rule: if you can’t read the research and comprehend it, you shouldn’t be writing about it.

  • If it’s new and different, it’s god

    Why would something new and astonishing and apparently a violation of what we know about nature be evidence of “God” or a god or the supernatural rather than…something new and astonishing and apparently a violation of what we know about nature?

    I can easily imagine evidence of something new and astonishing and apparently a violation of what we know about nature. I have a harder time thinking of something that would convince me it was evidence of “God” or a god or the supernatural.

    I’m not being stubborn or dogmatic in saying that. I’m saying I just don’t see why something new and the rest of it couldn’t point to A Big Unknown as opposed to the familiar though speculative category “God.”

    Maybe a very big very powerful Person? But that could be a part of nature we hadn’t known about before. It could tell us “Hey I’m the one in the Bible” [but in which language?] but that could be what this part of nature does.

    Maybe all kinds of spectacular magical events? But that could be astonishing and inexplicable without necessarily being non-natural. It could just mean that we’d never known what we hadn’t known – which is bound to be true anyway.

    On the other hand, I can see saying “this is at least evidence of something like what people have been calling ‘God’ all this time.” I can see agreeing that this changes everything I thought I knew, and everything I thought other people knew, too.

    But just plain “evidence of God”? Well which one, for a start?

    Inspired by.

  • A C Grayling on God and disaster

    If he is powerful enough to stop an earthquake, but created a world that inflicts agonizing sufferings arbitrarily on sentient creatures, then he is vile.

  • Pastor Terry Jones is back

    He enjoyed his taste of fame and he wants more.