The UK s first and only distinctively atheist organization. Democratically constituted, not-for-profit company. Sole object: the advancement of atheism. Implies: the active challenge of religious faith. Religious faith is a bad thing per se. Does not endorse any ethical or political system or values; individual members may. First and only UK affiliate to Atheist Alliance International. Appeals to atheists who are not humanists and humanists who regard atheism as important in its own right.
Arrangement of discussion:- The meaning and philosophical basis of atheism. The evolutionary origin of faith and religion. The evolutionary origin of morality. The relationship between atheism and morality. The distinction between atheism and humanism.
Definition of atheism Oxford English Dictionary: disbelief in the existence of God or gods. Disbelief: inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real. Etymology: late 16th century, from French athéisme, from Greek ἄθεος, a- without + theos god, or not God. At least the word approximately captures the intended sense. But any definition begs the question:- What is or are the God or gods in the existence of which atheism is the disbelief? We cannot decide whether or not something exists without knowing the nature of the entity in question.
Theological Non-cognitivism The most fundamental and powerful atheological argument. The word God does not symbolize anything intelligible. God-talk is nonsense. Depends what theists mean by God. A transcendent object. Transcendent : apart from and not subject to the limitations of the material universe.
What then, brethren, shall we say of God? For if you have been able to understand what you would say, it is not God. If you have been able to comprehend it, you have comprehended something else instead of God. If you have been able to comprehend him as you think, by so thinking you have deceived yourself. Augustine of Hippo 354-430 This then is not God, if you have comprehended it; but if this is God, you have not comprehended it.
Theological Non-cognitivism The most fundamental and powerful atheological argument. The word God does not symbolize anything intelligible. God-talk is nonsense. Depends what we mean by God. A transcendent object. Transcendent : apart from and not subject to the limitations of the material universe. Evidence is not an issue. Not necessarily anthropomorphic, or even animate. Transcendent object usually endowed with human attributes, including mind.
Our minds are our brains, and hence are ultimately just stupendously complex machines ; the difference between us and other animals is one of huge degree, not metaphysical kind. Daniel Dennett 1942- Professor of Philosophy Tufts University
There is nothing special about the substances from which living things are made. Living things are collections of molecules, like everything else. What is special is that these molecules are put together in much more complicated patterns than the molecules of nonliving things, and this putting together is done by following programs, sets of instructions for how to develop, which the organisms carry around inside themselves. Richard Dawkins 1941- First Professor for the Public Understanding of Science University of Oxford
The Nature of God As with humans, so with God. Under theological non-cognitivism, God is any transcendent object. Not necessarily either an anthropomorphic or an animate object. Can be any transcendent object or process. Can be natural law. This catches Buddhism and other allegedly non-theistic philosophies. It also catches quasi-religions such as spiritualism, astrology, alternative therapies etc.
The Nature of Belief The word God does not symbolize anything intelligible. God-talk is nonsense. God-talk is the profession of belief. Belief: the expression of emotion or feeling. Blind evolutionary instinct. Not rational choice. The biological cause of that instinct.
The God Delusion, 2006. A biological explanation for religion. Darwinian explanation. Richard Dawkins 1941- First Professor for the Public Understanding of Science University of Oxford
Breaking the Spell, 2006. A biological explanation for religion. A memetic explanation. The only way of reconciling the ant colony and corporation models of religion. Daniel Dennett 1942- Professor of Philosophy Tufts University
The Selfish Gene, 1976. Coined the term meme. Replicator of cultural evolution, analogous to gene in biological evolution. Not to propose a new theory or found a new science. Merely to make the point of universal Darwinism evolution is a universal algorithm. Richard Dawkins 1941- First Professor for the Public Understanding of Science University of Oxford
Viruses of the Mind, 1991. Characterized religious faith as mind virus. Faith : some deep, inner conviction that something is true, or right, or virtuous: a conviction that doesn t seem to owe anything to evidence or reason, but which, nevertheless, feels totally compelling and convincing. Richard Dawkins 1941- First Professor for the Public Understanding of Science University of Oxford
The Meme Machine, 1999 Developed science of Memetics further than anyone. Religions are particularly tenacious memes. Recently lost the plot? Susan Blackmore 1951- Visiting Professor of Psychology University of Plymouth
Meme Is it a valid concept? Not yet certain what memes are.
On the Origin of Species, 1859. Unaware of genes (Mendel, 1866). Darwin and Mendel both unaware of DNA (Crick and Watson, 1953). Charles Darwin 1809-1882
Memes Is it a valid concept? Do they exist at all? Not yet certain what memes are. However, in co-operation theory, game-theoretic strategies and reputation dynamics certainly exist, and are certainly memes. Memes have all the characteristics of living organisms. Memes propagate from mind to mind. They evolve complexity and diversity by a Darwinian process. They have a symbiotic relationship with and have co-evolved with human minds. They always function to maximize their fitness and ensure their own survival. They function to foster the survival and fitness of their hosts, human minds.
Mind Viruses Coined by Richard Dawkins in Viruses of the Mind, 1991. Developed by Richard Brodie in Virus of the Mind: The New Science of the Meme, 1996. All mind viruses are memes. Are all memes mind viruses? Not settled. Analogy, with biological viruses, is not exact. Any meme? Only parasitic memes?
The God Virus, 2009. Darrel Ray 1950-0000
The God Virus, 2009 Builds on Dawkins Viruses of the Mind. Does not attempt to show what the God Virus actually is. Shows that the God Virus paradigm provides an explanation for many religious phenomena. The God Virus always functions to maximize its fitness to ensure its own survival. It functions to foster the fitness and survival of its hosts, human minds. It fosters human group solidarity in circumstances in which host survival (and hence host fitness) most directly depends on hosts joining forces in groups. But
The God Virus disables critical thinking skills. It makes people believe things that are demonstrably false or contradictory. It make people believe that their morality, and nobody else s, is commanded by God and, therefore, absolute and intrinsic. It makes people believe that their particular group is chosen by God. That s why religious faith is a bad thing per se. Faith : the God Virus. Religion : a social system, the participants in which exhibit faith.
What is the origin of the God Virus? It has evolved from something else. Theism has evolved from moralism. A moral statement, I ought to do X, becomes:- 1. I believe God exists, 2. God commands X. An ought becomes an is. The Ought Virus.
The Is-Ought Gap Hume s thesis (1739):- An ought statement cannot be deduced from an is statement. An ought statement can only be deduced from another ought statement. David Hume 1711-1776
The Is-Ought Gap People instinctively loath and detest this idea. Most recently and notably, Sam Harris in The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values, 2010. Sam Harris 1967-
The Is-Ought Gap Hume s thesis rigorously proved (with minor modifications) by Gerhard Schurz in The Is-Ought Problem: An Investigation in Philosophical Logic, 1997. Gerhard Schurz 1956- Professor of Theoretical Philosophy Heinrich Heine University of Düsseldorf
The Is-Ought Gap Moore s Naturalistic Fallacy :- It is a fallacy that ethical conclusions can be drawn from natural facts. George Edward Moore 1873-1958 Professor of Mental Philosophy and Logic University of Cambridge
President of the British Humanist Association, 1965-70. Father of ethical non-cognitivism. Sentences which simply express moral judgements do not say anything. They are pure expressions of feeling and as such do not come under the category of truth and falsehood. Alfred Jules Ayer 1910-1989 Wykeham Professorship in Logic University of Oxford
The Is-Ought Gap Fact-value distinction. Descriptive-normative distinction. Qualitatively different. An ought statement is the expression of an emotion or feeling. Not rational choice. Blind evolutionary instinct. The biological cause of that instinct.
Co-operation Theory Robert Axelrod: The Evolution of Cooperation, 1984 Robert Axelrod 1943- Professor of Political Science and Public Policy University of Michigan
Co-operation Theory Shows that, in a population of self-seeking egoists, co-operation can emerge even if there is no central authority to police their actions. The essence of co-operation is altruism. Based on evolutionary game theory. Basic element: game-theoretic strategy. Applied in pair-wise interactions between individual organisms. Group-level features emerge from individual-level actions. Game-theoretic strategies are the product of Darwinian evolution. They are memes or mind viruses.
Altruism The essence of co-operation is altruism. An act is altruistic if it confers a benefit to another individual in spite of accruing a cost to the altruist. Examples:- Refraining from killing Refraining from causing pain and suffering Refraining from taking goods Abstaining from having sex Donating goods
Kin altruism Explained and successfully modelled by Dawkins selfish gene paradigm. Occurs in many species. Particular striking in the eusocial behaviour of bees, ants, termites, naked mole rats. It is the product of Darwinian evolution at the genetic level.
Direct reciprocal altruism Captured in the principle: You scratch my back, and I ll scratch yours. Explained and successfully modelled by evolutionary game theory. Found almost exclusively in primates. Based on Iterated Prisoners Dilemma game. Tit-for-tat emerges as the most successful strategy. It is:- Nice Retaliating Non-envious Forgiving
Indirect reciprocal altruism Captured in the principle:- You scratch my back and I ll scratch someone else s. I scratch your back and someone else will scratch mine. Explained and successfully modelled by evolutionary game theory. Exclusive to and a defining attribute of human beings. Constitutes the biological basis of morality.
Indirect reciprocal altruism Direct reciprocity is like an economy based on barter. Indirect reciprocity resembles the invention of money as the medium of exchange. The money that feeds the engines of indirect reciprocity is reputation. Reputation assignment rules, or reputation dynamics are moral norms. Moral norms are the product of Darwinian evolution. They are memes or mind viruses.
Indirect reciprocal altruism Moral norms are not universal. They are group-specific. The capacity for moral norms is:- a human universal. exclusive to and a defining attribute of human beings.
Indirect reciprocal altruism Moral norms are group-specific. Moral norms are shared by all individuals within, and are uniform throughout, a given group. Within a given group, there is a plethora of individual behavioural strategies. Individual behavioural strategies, groups and moral norms co-evolve. Groups, and their attendant moral norms, emerge from individual-level actions.
Indirect reciprocal altruism Indirect reciprocity provides the mechanism that distinguishes us humans from all other living species on Earth. The evolution of cooperation by indirect reciprocity leads to reputation building, morality judgement and complex social interactions with ever-increasing cognitive demands. Indirect reciprocity provided the selective challenge driving the cerebral expansion in human evolution. Dennett: the difference between us and other animals is one of huge degree, not metaphysical kind. That degree is in cerebral expansion, language, intelligence and cognitive capacity.
Moral Norms Reputation assignment rules or reputation dynamics Example:- Stern-Judging helping a good individual or refusing help to a bad individual leads to a good reputation, whereas refusing help to a good individual or helping a bad one leads to a bad reputation. Help good people and refuse help otherwise, and we shall be nice to you; otherwise, you will be punished. Implacable punishment goes side-by-side with prompt forgiving. In computer simulations, Stern-Judging outstrips all other reputation dynamics. Stern-Judging is found to be ubiquitous in the real world.
Moral Norms But:- Just because Stern-Judging is ubiquitous in human affairs, it does not follow that it ought to be adopted. It is an empirical fact, having evolved by a Darwinian process. It is ubiquitous, but not necessarily universal. It represents an approximate and simplified model of reality. It is massively ambiguous, its outcome, in terms of actual actions, depending upon initial and boundary conditions. Even if it were precise, universal and unambiguous, it is what it is; not what it ought to be.
The Ought Virus A moral norm is a meme or mind virus which infects the minds of individuals. I call it the Ought Virus. The Ought Virus engenders a moral emotion or feeling which is expressed as an ought statement. It always functions to maximize its fitness to ensure its own survival. It functions to foster the fitness and survival of its hosts, human minds. It fosters human group solidarity in circumstances in which host survival (and hence host fitness) most directly depends on hosts joining forces in groups. It does this by definition, since a group is a network of individuals, each in pairwise co-operation with the next, which emerges from individual-level interactions. But.
The Ought Virus The Ought Virus creates the illusion, in the minds it infects, that the moral emotions or feelings it engenders are absolute and intrinsic. In truth, they are an empirical fact, the product of Darwinian evolution. But the illusion of God, as commander of moral norms, fosters the illusion that they are absolute and intrinsic. So evolved the God Virus, a close relative of the Ought Virus.
Groups A moral norm corresponds to a group. Empirical fact and theoretical necessity. A group is a network of individuals, each in pair-wise co-operation with the next. Groups evolve by a Darwinian process, and co-evolve with moral norms. Group-level structure emerges from individual-level interactions. But the illusion of God, as commander of moral norms, fosters the illusion that a group is chosen by God.
Atheism and Humanism Is humanism the same thing as atheism? If it is, why call it humanism? Why not call it atheism? Atheism is an essential component of humanism. It does not follow that atheism is a subset of humanism. Is humanism a corollary of atheism? Nothing can be derived from atheism alone. Additional suppositions are required. If those suppositions include the existence of universal human values, did those values exist before the evolution of human beings?
Human Values There are no universal human values. If they were, there would have to be some form of God to command them. God: any transcendent object, not necessarily anthropomorphic or even animate. Human values are the product of Darwinian evolution. Human values always contain an element of blind evolutionary instinct. Not exclusively rational choice.
Human Values Human values are group-specific. The capacity for human values is a human universal. Human values are what they are, not what they ought to be. No one set of human values is:- absolute and intrinsic superior to any other. The set values we hold has evolved to make us believe that it is. But
Intra-group conflict Human values are group-specific. Within a given group, values are all the same. Therefore, any conflict is about facts, not values, and can be resolved by a process of rational choice.
Inter-group conflict Between groups, if they come into contact, values are different and conflict is irreconcilable. The God Virus makes people believe things that are demonstrably false or contradictory. Therefore, conflicts of value appear to be conflicts of fact. The God Virus operates as a barrier to entry for values from one group to another. Without the God Virus, different values can compete with each other across group boundaries. Values and groups are not static but are continually co-evolving. The God Virus is religious faith. Religious faith inhibits the co-evolution of values and groups. is the solution to inter-group conflict.