I haven't written a single article during this month of
December. It is today or never.
I am an atheist. No doubt about it. I don't believe that
some all-powerful, self-conscious entity is interested in our lives
or even that it exists. There are no reasons for believing
that a God exists, but neither are there reasons for not believing
that it exists. Therefore, the most logical position is to be
an agnostic, not an atheist. I should be able to say: I
neither believe nor disbelieve. And yet, I don't
believe. For somebody like me, who has a scientific formation,
this is not completely satisfying, because I am asserting something
that can be neither proven nor disproven.
In any case, the existence or non-existence of God doesn't affect my
life in any way. At least not directly, as what believers
manage to impose on everybody else does have an influence on
me. Religious fervour has resulted in laws prohibiting
abortion (like in Malta and Chile), traditions keeping girls out of
school (like in Afghanistan), and regulations forcing restrictive
dress codes on women (like in the Orthodox Jewish quarter of Tel
Aviv, where women must cover their arms). Obviously, I will
never need an abortion, I have been able to attend school, and I am
allowed to wear short-sleeved shirts wherever I want.
Nevertheless, these rules, often directed at women, are deeply
annoying.
This distinction between atheism and agnosticism is just another way
of placing people in boxes. A more important distinction is
whether people have doubts or not. Certainties are
dangerous. Certainties make possible for fanatics to strap
around their waists belts full of explosive and blow themselves up
in public places. Certainties have caused over the whole
recorded history of Humanity persecutions of entire ethnics groups
and tortures of millions.
In fact, I believe that certainties are responsible for most of the
problems we have today. There are too many faithfuls and not
enough scientists.
What many non-scientists have difficulties in grasping is that
no
scientific statement can ever be proven to be absolutely
true. For example, Newton's theory of gravitation worked
flawlessly for a long time and is still used every day. But it
was discovered that it couldn't fully explain the orbit of the
planet Mercury. Einstein's theory of gravitation solved that
problem and has been confirmed by countless measurements. Does
it mean that Newton was wrong? Not at all. It only means
that Newton's theory is an approximation of general relativity or,
if you prefer, that Einstein's theory can explain a wider class of
phenomena and with more accuracy. Does it mean that Einstein's
theory will always be right? Again, not at all. It only
means that, so far, it has never been proven to be at fault
(although, truth be told, general relativity has not been
successfully integrated with quantum mechanics; but that's another
story).
Scientific statements, therefore, are a never-ending
work-in-progress. They can be proven wrong in some cases, but
the proof of their correctness never ends. Despite of their
intrinsic uncertainties, all these
temporary laws of Physics
can still be used to discover further laws that explain our
universe. It is a bit like crossing an infinitely wide
mountain creek on wobbling stones: scientists keep stepping on the
same wobbly theories and, as they progress, the older theories
become more and more trustworthy; more stable paths are identified.
People who insist that Intelligent Design (ID) should be taught at
school in Science classes as an alternative to Evolution by Natural
Selection (ENS) can only do so because most people don't know what I
have explained in the previous two paragraphs. The ID people
state that ENS is an unproven theory.
But there is no
scientific theory completely proven. It is
impossible. The key issue is that ENS can be disproven, while
ID cannot. That is why ENS is a scientific theory and ID
is not!
The same problem pops up with the hoopla about climate change,
levels of CO
2, and whether the changes are anthropic or
not. People ignorant in Science would like to have clear,
unambiguous, and final answers, and confuse scientific results with
beliefs. But certainty has no place in Science.
My attitude towards God is scientific: if, after asking me whether I
believe that a God exists (to which, as I said, I would reply no),
you asked me whether I'm sure, I would have to answer with another
no. Of course I'm not sure. How could I? But I
don't need to introduce an "ad hock" entity that explains everything
Science cannot [yet] understand. For centuries, the Catholic
Church was a drag on Science because it wanted to cling to what its
revealed truth (actually, it still is). It was (is) a problem
caused by certainties (not "misplaced certainties", because all
certainties are misplaced).
All so-called proofs of the existence of God that come to mind rely
on negatives: all this beauty of nature cannot be the result of
random events; we don't know how our universe came into
existence; it cannot be that our existence has no purpose;
etc. But how can one claim to prove anything on the basis of
what one doesn't know? It is baffling.
I know little about Judaism and Islam (of which I am somewhat
ashamed), but I was taught the
Catholic
catechism. I strongly encourage you to have a look at
it, especially if you have never done it before. It is an
amazing construction of cross-linked concepts. I have to
wonder how many so-called faithfuls actually believe much of what is
in there...
As Alain de Botton convincingly explained in his book
Religion for Atheists,
religion has its functions and its usefulness in society. But
it should be kept in check and not overpower everything else.
Christianity might have shaped morality and laws of the western
world, but I don't need a priest to tell me that to contribute to a
harmonious society I should behave with others as I would like them
to behave with me. Luke's
do to others as you would have
them do to you (verse 6:31) is only an expression of a
Golden Rule
that has been recognised and applied everywhere since antiquity.
I believe that ENS has resulted in the collaborative attitude of
human beings. A typical example of such a "social" attitude is
shown by how people behave when confronted with the game called "the
prisoner's dilemma". From
Wikipedia
(look in particular to the last sentence):
Two members of a criminal gang are arrested and imprisoned. Each
prisoner is in solitary confinement with no means of speaking to
or exchanging messages with the other. The police admit they don't
have enough evidence to convict the pair on the principal charge.
They plan to sentence both to a year in prison on a lesser charge.
Simultaneously, the police offer each prisoner a Faustian bargain.
Each prisoner is given the opportunity either to betray the other,
by testifying that the other committed the crime, or to cooperate
with the other by remaining silent. Here's how it goes:
- If A and B both betray the other, each of them serves 2
years in prison
- If A betrays B but B remains silent, A will be set free and
B will serve 3 years in prison (and vice versa)
- If A and B both remain silent, both of them will only serve
1 year in prison (on the lesser charge)
It's implied that the prisoners will have no opportunity to
reward or punish their partner other than the prison sentences
they get, and that their decision won't affect their reputation in
future. Because betraying a partner offers a greater reward than
cooperating with them, all purely rational self-interested
prisoners would betray the other, and so the only possible outcome
for two purely rational prisoners is for them to betray each
other. The interesting part of this result is that pursuing
individual reward logically leads both of the prisoners to betray,
when they would get a better reward if they both cooperated. In
reality, humans display a systematic bias towards cooperative
behavior in this and similar games, much more so than predicted by
simple models of "rational" self-interested action.
It makes sense to speak of rules of ethics applicable to everyone,
but, except for predispositions resulting from ENS, they ought to be
based on rationality, with the aim of maximising our collective
well-being, not allegedly inspired by a God invented to comfort
us. There is no need for a God to explain the validity of
moral codes.
For millennia, religions played an important role in constraining
some of human emotions that, if uncontrolled, would have resulted in
chaos. But, at the same time, religions also exploited those
same emotions for their own purposes of expansion and control.
I say: let's get rid of them!
We must invest as much as possible in education, so that a secular,
conscious morality will eventually replace the rules imposed by
superstition, regardless of whether it is called witchcraft or
religion. One day, with the help of Science, we will be able
to control our destructive emotions rationally, while still enjoying
the positive ones. Only then, we will have left behind the
caves of our ancestors and be ready to explore the universe.
