Ken Conner on the Soul: A Festival of Nonsequitors

Over at Townhall, Ken Conner comments on a NY Times article entitled "Science of the Soul? ‘I Think, Therefore I Am’ Is Losing Force" by Cornelia Dean. In the NYT piece, the progress scientists are making studying the brain and its function is discussed as it pertains to ancient concepts of a uniquely human soul that many of us were raised with and still carry around. And as has been common with the history of science, as it makes more and more progress explaining a concept held holy and distinct from the material world by many, defenders of the status quo like Conner pop up. Unfortunately, his defense is riddled with poor reasoning, gratuitous assertions, and nonsequitors.

A consistent theme in Conner's writing is that somehow, if our soul/conscience/morals/religions are not divinely granted, then they are meaningless.

"Do as you please. Seize the day! Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow you die. And forget about that still small voice that we call 'conscience.' It's nothing more than a biological process—sort of like the heartburn you get after eating too much pizza."

OK, but so what? Does my heartburn hurt less knowing it is merely a biological process? Does my conscious bother me less if I do wrong knowing this? Conner never explains this nonsequitor which appears repeatedly in his narrative.

He also does not explain what we are supposed to do even if we do buy his argument. Is he seriously claiming that if the findings of science offend our traditional views we should just ignore reality? Does he think pretending morals and our conscience are divinely granted will produce the same effects even if that is untrue? Alas, those that argue as he does never address these issues. Instead, he falls back on juvenile sarcasm:

"So there you have it, God does not exist. The New York Times said it, so it must be true. There is no soul. There is no God. Moral sense is just a feeling produced by neurons. Religion is a leftover from a more primitive evolutionary stage. Human beings are not really different from animals. Got it?"

This is a gallop Gish would be proud of. Showing the natural derivation of morality doesn't prove the nonexistence of gods. But those whose belief in gods is based on the assumption that gods are necessary for morality, the conscience, etc., must now face the fact that their view is that much less tenable. The rational response to that, as it is with any new information gained, is to revise one's views accordingly, not fly into a snit as Conner does. One can still have gods and a naturally evolved mind. It just gives the gods less to do.

Of course, what conservative screed would be complete without scare words, and the NYT is a convenient boogie man. But its not the word of the NYT, but rather the scientific evidence, that is making people believe these things are so.

So what if our moral sense is naturally produced? That doesn't suddenly make its value less. If it evolved, then it was subjected to the same selection forces that shaped our legs. Are we to conclude that we can no longer trust our legs to properly support us if we accept they were a process of evolution? Why then would Conner ask us to stop trusting our moral sense that guides us so well? Again, it is a question those of Conner's ilk never ask. The reason is simple: Conner is operating from a misconception of what evolution is. He thinks in terms of tornadoes in junkyards making 747's, complete randomness that somehow, magically worked out to be us. So to him, a naturally occurring moral sense would be no more trustworthy than random words strung together. He understands nothing of the power of cumulative selection over time to shape highly effective and complex systems. Thus, his argument is not a challenge to the findings of these neuroscientists in the NYT article. His argument merely reveals his own ignorance of how evolution works.

Are human beings really different from animals Mr. Conner? How? All the old demonstrable traits I learned as a boy in Catholic school have been overturned. Other animals reason, they make and use tools, show empathy, sometimes even for other species. There is nothing left except speculation on the soul. If you and others like you want the rest of us to believe humans are unique in the animal world, then the onus is on you to support that claim with DEMONSTRABLE evidence, not hand-waving speculation. The 97% of us that is identical to chimps awaits with baited breath.

"Many scientists have convinced themselves that nothing exists except the material world. Reality is limited to that which can be objectified, quantified, and verified. For them, if the soul cannot be weighed, it must not exist. Unless God can be measured, he must be fanciful. Unless morality can be quantified, it must be illusion. There is no such thing as metaphysics...all reality is material. Period."

Here again we see Conner's lack of understanding of science. It is the measurement of the EFFECTS of reality, through falsifiable experimentation, for which scientists search. You say X exists? Fine, what measureable effects of X can we expect and under what circumstances? We need to be able to directly measure these effects to have good reason to believe there is such a thing. History is replete with examples such as electrons and nonvisible planets (which Conner ironically mentions), where science had no trouble whatever accepting the existence of things which they could not directly measure. Measuring the effects was sufficient. The same would be true of any other conception, including gods. Without that evidence, science has nothing to say, except that there is no validation of those theories, and therefore no reason to believe.

"Though they are skilled at measuring the material world, scientists do not have the expertise or authority to declare that there is nothing but a material world. The limits of scientific detection do not circumscribe the boundaries of our existence."

Pray tell, who does have the authority to declare whether there is or is not a nonmaterial world? Surely not the gents in pointy hats who have been shuffling to keep up with what the scientists are discovering about the world. This is a red herring for the most part, because this discussion is about scientists disproving contentions about the material world based on assumptions of a nonmaterial one. When the gents in pointy hats confine their statements to the nonmaterial world, I predict they will find the scientific community uniformly disinterested in trying to disprove their proclamations.

"J. B. S. Haldane showed how the limits of materialism make human reason incomprehensible: "If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true...and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms." If we are solely material beings as the New York Times is keen to argue, then there is no basis for truly rational thought.

Haldane shows the same ignorance of evolution that Conner has, by assuming that any material arrangement of his brain must be random. This is merely the argument from design in reverse, and it fares no better. Mental processes were shaped by selection processes which are anything but random.

"If the breezily asserted claim that morals are nothing but feelings produced by the brain is true, then clearly, we would no longer be bound by morals. The powerful could impose whatever "morality" they want on the weak."

Clearly by what reasoning? The only person doing the breezy asserting here is Conner. The feelings don't go away because we find out their source is different. And maybe Conner needs to look around the world a bit - the powerful impose whatever morality they want on the weak all the time now. Does he think a divinely deposited morality somehow unloads guns?

You know someone's case is weak when they say something as absurd as this:

"And what if human beings are not fundamentally different from animals, as the article also asserts? Does that mean the local butcher is a murderer, or does it mean murderers are no less immoral than the butcher?"

Anyone who has had a dog and disciplined it knows how ridiculous this is. Soul or not, animals, and people, respond to feedback.

And finally, Conner finishes with this ignorant flourish:

"We may not all have Ph.D.'s in neuroscience or evolutionary biology, but that doesn't mean that we are stupid. Notwithstanding what some members of the scientific community may think, scientists are not all knowing and the field of science is not competent to unravel all of the mysteries of human existence."

Gee, you think? Not having a PhD doesn't mean you are stupid? A PhD doesn't make you all-knowing? Well, knock me over with a feather. How about dealing with the reality Mr. Conner: that having a PhD in neuroscience or evolutionary biology means you know a good deal more about those subjects than your average columnist. After all, your ignorant screed provides excellent evidence, if you care about such things.

A Letter to AA

A reader going through an AA class sent me a note she wrote while listening to the Chaplain. He noticed that she was taking notes a bit more fervently than the others, and he asked her to share (ie read) her notes to the class. Apparently this is common. What was not common was what she had written. She tried to talk him out of it, but he insisted he liked to hear all the views the students have. Here is what she wrote:

Step 2: Come to believe that a power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.

What about atheists? Are they left behind? Are they doomed to remain addicts or alcoholics without hope for recovery? AA says it does not pressure us to "believe in God". Then what of Step 3: "Make a decision to turn our will and lives over to the care of God as we understood him".

God said "judge not lest ye be judged". Why then, are Christians quick to judge one who does not believe? Who are they to doom another to be "unrecoverable"? Can't we just want to be healed fr ourselves, and not to please the omnipotent?

The Chaplain states that until we turn our lives over to God, we will not be given the power to overcome our addiction. That is to me, an attempt to brainwash and at the very least, coerce patients into religion. To me, it is almost a cruel manipulative trick, to choose the weakest, most vulnerable subjects to spread their propaganda. We will not ask questions, only follow blindly, searching for hope somewhere, anywhere, to help us "get better".

How does believing in God affect the chemicals in my brain? If I believe, will he magically fix the problems that are scientifically proven to be caused by alcohol, and proven to be controllable through abstinence? If I don't have religion, will my body and brain be an exception to the scientific rule? If so, where is the proof to back up that belief?"

Indeed, where? Where is AA's evidence that any of what they claim is true? They are long on assertions, and short on science. As people ponder whether discrimination against atheists exists, consider the people forced to attend AA meetings as a condition of probation or parole. They are basically forced to claim to believe things without evidence to earn their freedom. If that isn't discrimination, what is? If those of you who claim discrimination against atheists doesn't exist cannot hear the cry from the patient above, what would you hear?

The Phone Salesman Opera Singer

Before you get the wrong idea, I can't stand the television talent shows. But if they could deliver talent like this chap in from the British version every time, they could get me to watch. It is quite inspirational. There is also a final performance and the announcement of the contest winner. This guy has probably done more to create interest in opera than anything since the film Amadeus. It's the kind of story that seems to good to be true.

Buzz Aldrin: A Great Punch

Thanks to PZ Myers for alerting me to this great little video of Buzz Aldrin doing to a moonlanding hoax conspiracy theorist what a lot of us have thought about doing. It was in 2002, not sure how I missed that one. LA County decided to not press charges. I guess astronauts still get some priviledges. hereis a version with audio.

Atheism a Civil Rights Issue? Hell Yes!

Over at the Council for Secular Humanism, DJ Grothe and Austin Dacey argue that atheism is not a civil rights issue. Matt Nisbet chimes in in similar fashion. I must respectfully disagree.

Grothe and Dacey argue:

"But do unbelievers really suffer comparable harm? Atheists are not denied equal access to housing for lacking belief in god, nor are they kept from seeing their partners during life-threatening scenarios in hospitals. Atheists don't earn sixty-five cents for every dollar earned by believers, nor are they prevented from voting."

The reason there aren't as many public issues with discrimination against atheists as one might think given the common ministerial rhetoric out there, seems rather obvious: it is easy to hide, and we all learn rather early on that we should. We don't like to suffer that harm more than once.

We are not like blacks in that one can't tell we are atheists by looking at us, and we are not like homosexuals in that we have no public meeting places bashers can go to find us. In that regard we are not like them, but that is only in degree, not in kind. Were we all to walk around with t-shirts that said "I'm an atheist", the situations would be very similar.

"To our knowledge, there is no such thing as 'atheist bashing.' If there were cases of such harm, one would expect to hear about them in the media and the courts, or at least in the common knowledge of unbelievers. So, where are the cases? On many occasions we have put this question to leaders in the nonreligious community and have never been presented with a single compelling example."

I guess your standards of compelling differ from mine. When you have a slobbering football coach scream threateningly at you when he notices you aren't saying the Lord's Prayer with everyone else, when you have a good friend stop talking to you just for asking that she not prosyletize in emails, when your good friend is told to leave her uncle's house and never return because she told him she was an atheist, when your girlfriend says "you aren't an atheist" with the same tone that she might say "you aren't a bad person", when your mother apologizes for you to family and tells them you really aren't an atheist, when your wife has to explain to your otherwise intelligent inlaws that you do not in fact eat babies, I'd say that's atheist bashing. You just don't hear about it very much because we learn to just shut up about it.

"Sure, it would be hard to be elected to higher office in America as an avowed unbeliever, but it would also be impossible for a socialist or a Mother Earth spiritualist."

What a ridiculous comparison. Socialism is a political position, so obviously it is acceptable for someone to vote against a candidate who was a socialist if that did not match with the voter's political opinions. As for Mother Earth spiritualists, their difficulty would arise from the fact that they hold bizarre beliefs with little evidenciary backing, and this would lose votes the same as a flat earther or Raelian. In a Hindu society a Christian would be viewed the same way and for the same reasons. But atheists are atheists precisely because we DON'T do this. A majority of Americans say they would never vote for an atheist for president because we apply what is considered a virtue in any other area of thought (demanding evidence before accepting a claim) to religion. If that isn't atheist bashing, then what the hell is?

"Civil rights struggles are related to a more general approach to social action known as 'identity politics.' In identity politics, people organize around their shared identity rather than their party affiliation or political ideology. This is quite appropriate for groups whose collective, historical experience of oppression has forged some substantial unity in belief and social agenda. Yet atheists have no beliefs in common but their disbelief. Imagine a voting bloc that would back a candidate merely for lacking faith in a personal deity."

In other words, discrimination against atheists isn't a civil rights issue because we are not politically organized. What a bunch of semantic claptrap. I suppose Grothe and Dacey would claim the same about emancipation of the slaves. They had no unity in belief and social agenda, they don't count. Shame on you both.

Let's not forget the president claiming you can't be a good citizen (as Bush Sr. did), or the fact that we are portrayed as the hero in popular entertainment 0% up until recently when the figure has spiked up to a scary 5% or so. Seems pretty akin to what blacks when through, when only fairly recently have gotten roles that weren't stereotypically black. This has an effect on people's views, and is plain old bigotry.

It's not complicated reasoning really. If friends and family are willing to ostracize you over your atheism, what might people who don't give a rats ass about you do? Most of us would rather not find out. In that way, the best analogy is probably to people with HIV. They too are demonized beyond reason, but you don't hear a lot of cases of people being discriminated against for it because they can choose not to tell anyone, and stay hidden.

Now have at the semantic argument over whether or not bigotry agaist atheists qualifies as a civil rights issue if you choose. I do not. The reality of the discrimination is enough for me to make it an issue worthy of addressing in our society.

Nisbet replies:

"On occasion, atheists are discriminated against because they have a public image problem, and the Dawkins/Hitchens' PR campaign, by radicalizing a movement of attacks and complaints, only makes this public image problem worse, generating more discrimination."

I disagree, especially with regard to Dawkins. People react the way they do to what he says primarily because they are used to religion getting a free pass from the kind of frank criticism he levies. I have never seen an actual quote of his that warranted the shrill complaints about his supposed irascibility, and I've read and seen a lot of him. He just calls religion for the unusupported bullshit it is the same as he would for something like astrology.

Hitchens is no doubt incendiary, but I have yet to see any data that supports the notion that he makes the problem worse. Just from observing book sales and other social trends, it would seem he and the others are giving atheists the confidence to stand up and be counted like everyone else. No one highly offended by what Hitchens has to say was going to side with us anyway.

"Instead of mobilizing a movement of sophomoric attacks and complaints that paints as black all religious Americans,"

You make my case for me. Why are atheist criticisms of religion automatically labelled "sophmoric" and "complaints"? Because atheists are just supposed to sit down and shut up, of course. It's fine and dandy that someone winning an award thanks the gods for helping her. Never mind how ludicrous that is. Call it as it is, and you are being sophmoric. THAT is sophmoric.

"atheists need to focus on offering a positive vision of what it means to live life without religion; both in the popular entertainment media but also as leaders who span divides in our communities, (instead of just generating further polarization.)

I agree that atheists ought to be focusing on the positive, and I'd argue that most of the atheist authors of these so-called attacks are doing just that. Dawkins is fabulous to listen to talk about the wonder of the world, and our quest for knowledge of it. He gave a moving talk of giving a religionless funeral service, and how enriching it was. Of course, people always want to focus on his views of religion, so that is what gets the press. But read and listen to what the man actually says when left to his own devices, and a very different picture emerges.

As for polarization, just check your average pulpit this weekend, where thousands of ministers will be ranting to their flock of how atheists have no morals, and aren't really atheists anyway, and can't be trusted to tell the truth, or be faithful, or a whole host of bigoted garbage. Hitchens at his acrimonious best doesn't begin to come close to that. Could we atheists do things a little better? Sure. But let's not forget where the real dividers are on this issue, and how their bigotry is no less real, than when they were ranting about negroes.

Save the Planet: Uncycle

A lot of people have asked me whether I recycle. I do not. It's not because I think it doesn't do any good, or that we don't need to conserve, or that the process of recycling can be more environmentally damaging than not doing so. It's just not a habit I've been able to pick up. I'm a good old fashioned conservationist, but no one uses that word any more, so I call what I do "uncycling". Rather than use something and recycle it, I just don't use it in the first place. I find it much more satisfying than delivering goods to the recycler. It can be as simple as not letting the checker at th grocery put your one item in a bag. Why put bread in a bag...in another bag? Or avoiding driving across the street when walking will do. It's easy, everyone can do it, and it makes a difference.

Neat Mobius Effect

Via Good Math, Bad Math comes this neat video. It's amazing how insightful graphics like this can be. I might have enjoyed algebraic structures had I had access to something like this.