Atheism Has Apostates, Too

I must say, it always amuses me when an Atheist (with a capitol “A”, meaning an atheist who makes a big deal out of it) brings the hammer down on someone who is “supposed” to be a fellow Atheist (typically by virtue of his scientific training) yet “breaks ranks” by stating or insinuating that the atheist world view is mistaken. This is apparently an unforgivable sin in Atheism, since it tends to disprove the Atheist contention that no intelligent, educated person could possibly believe in God.

My first experience with a Writ of Prosecution against an Atheist Apostate was when I read neuroscientist Sam Harris tearing into Eben Alexander, a neurosurgeon, for writing the book “Heaven is Real” about an alleged near-death experience. Dr. Alexander, you see, is only a neurosurgeon and, according to Harris, neurosurgeons just cut brains, they don’t actually study them (or at least Dr. Alexander doesn’t). The same sort of invective was directed against philosopher Anthony Flew when he converted to deism ("losing it in his waning years”), and against Cambridge mathematician John Lennox (“senile”). Indeed, it does seem that Atheism has its own apostates and its own way of burning them at the stake.

Since then I have managed to tease out a pattern for these sort of attacks – (i) personal attacks on the author’s credibility to distract the reader from considering the substance of what was actually said and (ii) liberal use of polemics. The article, “The NDE Delusion”, written by PZ Meyers as a rebuttal to the article Near Death, Explained by Mario Beauregard fits the pattern quite nicely. No refutation that Beauregard simply “cuts brains”, for this time the offending author is a neuroscientist (well, according to Meyers he is only “supposed to be a neuroscientist”). So perhaps we should all repent and trust Meyers instead when he brands Beauregard a “kook” and states that a book he once co-authored was “incompetently written and idiotically conceived” (and don’t forget “gobbledegook”!), that Near Death, Explained is “full of woo” (be careful, PZ, you’re stealing Sam Harris’ trademark insult – perhaps ‘poo’ would be more original and less likely to submit you to a trademark infringement lawsuit), that Salon.com published the article “to confuse us”, that the article's commentators on Salon.com are “mystically-inclined, quantum-woo-spouting diddledingles”), that the article itself is “nonsense”, “bullshit” – all before even bothering to embark on a substantive criticism of the article itself (actually, Meyer’s attenuated effort to discredit NDEs by discrediting Beauregard by discrediting Salon.com by insulting its readers as "diddledingles" appeared at the end of Meyer’s polemic).

Meyer’s devastating rebuttal goes on with some general polemics about the evidence for the veracity of NDEs in general – “tired old anecdotes” and “bogus misinterpretations”, etc. He then proceeds to (appropriately, in my opinion) discredit the Maria’s Shoe story, which is commonly used as evidence for the supernatural theory of NDEs –  but then tries to lump this story in with Pam’s Story (which was what Beauregard’s article was all about) without even purporting to attack it directly. It’s uncanny the way Meyers so deftly dances around the meat of Beauregard’s article while nibbling on the buns. Meyer, an Associate Professor of Biology, then proceeds to lecture Beauregard, a neuroscientist, on how the brain works. Apparently this “kooky” neuroscientist who writes articles full of “woo”, “nonsense” and “bullshit” is the biased one, while PZ Meyers is the calm, rational “freethinker” who sees everything objectively. OK…

Anyway, Atheists are SO CUTE when they’re angry!

Why the "Laws of Physics" Prove Intelligent Design: Guest Post by Todd Gnarly, Super-Fundie

This post might provide some useful background material for the following argument:

150 years ago Charles Darwin solved the problem of apparent design in biology with evolution. Now  we've got an more perplexing design problem to solve -- the fine-tuning of the initial conditions of the Big Bang.

Entropy is a mathematically defined measure of disorganization. The more disorganized a system is, the more entropy is has, and the more organized a system is, the less entropy is has. One of the most all-pervasive realities of the universe is the law of increasing entropy. That is to say, the universe proceeds from a state of organization (low entropy) to a state of disorganization (high entropy) as it moves forward in time. Isolated areas of the universe, such a the Earth, may temporarily proceed in the other direction, from high entropy to low entropy (hence the development of life), but  this decrease in entropy comes at the price of an increase in entropy in the universe as a whole. One demonstration of how entropy works is to imagine a deck of cards arranged in perfect order (organized, low entropy). Someone thoroughly shuffles them, and now their position relative to each other is nearly random (disorganized, high entropy). Without external intervention, the "deck of cards" that we call the universe grows progressively more disorganized as time goes on (it keep on getting "shuffled", so to speak).

Looking into the future of the universe, modern cosmology foresees that entropy will increase without limit until the heat death of the universe. A heat-dead universe is a very boring place with no complexity and no life. What's interesting, however, is that when you start there, extrapolating backwards to the universe's distant past, as it grows progressively more organized. By the time you get to the Big Bang, entropy is at its maximum. It's as if a random deck of cards was reshuffled until all the cards were in perfect order (or playing a scene of the shuffling of a deck of cards in reverse). Without this order, life of any form would have been impossible in the universe, because the universe would be unable to support the complexity required for life.

Prominent physicist and Oxford Professor Roger Penrose has estimated the odds against the Big Bang starting out in such an organized fashion as 10¹⁰¹²³ to 1. My computer won't do double exponents, but if you wanted to write out that number in longhand you would need to write a 1 with 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 zeroes behind it. That's not the number itself, that's the number of zeroes you would have to write down to express the number longhand. The actual number is so large that the entire visible universe doesn't contain enough space for you to write it out longhand, even if your zeroes were microscopic in size. It would be more likely that every atom in the universe assembled itself into the universe we see today a half a second ago by pure random fluctuation , complete with everybody's memories, than for the universe to have started out with this vanishingly unlikely configuration purely by chance. Barring chance, some people are growing more and more confident that the universe is the product of intelligent design.

Recently cosmologists have been fond of explaining a related problem, the fine-tuning of the physical constants of the universe, by proposing the existence of a multiverse -- a huge number of parallel universes, each with their own physical constants that vary randomly from universe to universe. If you've got enough universes, the argument goes, sooner or later you'll run into a universe as organized as ours was in the beginning. It's like saying that if you shuffle a deck enough times and deal yourself enough hands, sooner or later you'll pull a royal flush right off the top of the deck, just by chance. Likewise, string theory predicts a multiverse ensemble of 10⁵⁰⁰ universes, among which our universe is only one. The problem is that although 10⁵⁰⁰ is a large number,  10¹⁰¹²³ is much, much larger. So much larger, in fact, that the odds against a universe as organized as ours showing up in even one of those 10⁵⁰⁰ universes is 2 X 10¹²⁰ to 1 -- that's 2 with 120 zeroes behind it (do the math yourself!). As string theory pioneer Leonard Susskind said (when pondering the fine-tuning of the physical constants for the development of life), it's either intelligent design or the multiverse. And since string theory can't even begin to give us enough universes to explain the fine-tuning of the initial conditions (the shockingly low entropy conditions of the Big Bang), that leaves intelligent design as the only remaining explanation.

Some cosmologists don't like this very much, so they came up with an "answer". Not a mathematical theory or a groundbreaking new experiment, mind you. Instead, they came up with a definition. "Let's define the low-entropy initial conditions of the Big Bang as a new scientific law." Great, now that you have defined it as a law, there's no need to question or explain its unlikelihood anymore. Because you've just eliminated the problem through definitional fiat -- after all, it's a lot more difficult to actually solve a problem than to simply define it out of existence. It's like dealing yourself a royal flush off the top of the deck your very first hand, then positing a "Law of Initial Royal Flushes" to rebut charges of cheating leveled at you by the other players whose hands hold nothing of value. Indeed, it sort of reminds me of George Orwell's novel 1984. In Orwell's fictional world the authorities controlled people's thoughts by controlling the language. By changing the definitions of certain words, they made it impossible to think certain thoughts. This rendered the population blind to contradictions and hypocrisies that the government was trying to paper over. Now it seems that certain cosmologists are trying to do the same thing. For example:

"Why is there order in the universe?"
"Because the universe is governed by the laws of physics."
"Why is the universe governed by the laws of physics?"
"Because there is order in the universe."

Absolutely outrageous circular reasoning.

The laws of physics are based on inductive reasoning -- the idea that if something has happened the same way every time for long enough, it must continue to happen the same way in the future. After all, E has equaled MC² every single time it's ever been measured. So of course the next time we measure it, it will be the same, right? Isn't the future a slave to the past? Isn't the mere fact that something has always happened that way evidence that it will continue to happen that way -- indeed, that it must happen that way?

No. Not unless you establish logical necessity or external intervention. The implications of inductive reasoning decisively falsify the idea that the laws of physics are logically necessary, because inductive reasoning itself is incapable of establishing logical necessity. Indeed, if the laws of physics were logically necessary, in the same sense that two plus two must equal four and nothing else, no coherent multiverse theory could exist, because logical necessity would dictate that the laws of physics could not vary from universe to universe, as is required if the multiverse is to explain fine-tuning. As for external necessity, what could be external to the universe? (Shut up, I don't wanna hear the "G-word", it's not allowed in a serious intellectual discussion such as this one! VERY intellectually unfashionable!)


Imagine a trillions of monkeys banging randomly on trillions of keyboards. After zillions of years, one of these immortal monkeys accidentally types out half the text of Shakespeare's Hamlet. Absent somebody "monkeying" with the keyboard or the transcript (or the monkey's intelligence), what might you expect to find on the very next page of this simian masterpiece? Gibberish. My point is that the future is not a slave to the past unless so mandated by external necessity.

The "laws" of physics are established by inductive reasoning, and inductive reasoning cannot establish logical necessity (see the Problem of Induction for a more involved explanation of the limits of inductive reasoning). Positing physical necessity without reference to an external agent is circular reasoning, because the laws of physics cannot establish themselves, they can only reveal themselves through careful observation. There is no apparent external reason to believe that just because we have always observed E=MC² to hold, that it will continue to hold in the future. We need external necessity to explain the continuity and intelligibility of the universe. Calling it a "law" is just a way of assuming your way past the question at issue ("Why is the universe intelligible?") by definitional fiat, just as those 10¹⁰¹²³ cosmologists propose. Order requires an explanation, chaos doesn't. Why is the universe ordered? If it is a logical necessity, then the laws of physics must be the same in every universe (this defeating the only alternative to the intelligent design solution to the fine-tuning argument) -- or, perhaps, logic itself must vary from universe to universe, meaning that 2+2 might equal 5 in the next door universe, thereby rendering a coherent multiverse theory impossible.

If the laws of physics (and the physical constants) are not logically necessary, how can they be explained? I don't mean why they are the specific values they are, but why order exists at all in the universe. Scientists have been papering over this for centuries by reference to imaginary laws. The question "Why order?" is screaming for an answer and has been for centuries. Another explanation for "the way things are" is needed.

Imagine a roulette wheel in Vegas at a moment when it has hit 16 blacks in a row. What are the odds of it hitting black on the next spin? Ignoring the House take, the odds are still precisely 50/50 unless you assume somebody's cheating. Now, let's extrapolate backwards to the 9th spin of the 16-black run. Suppose a gambler theorizes that he's in the middle of a "black run" and that therefore, the next spins will necessarily hit black. He bets on it, and his theory is confirmed 8 times in a row. The odds against that happening by chance ore 256 to 1. Now he's really sure his theory is correct, and bets all he has on the next spin. But he's disastrously mistaken - the odds of hitting black are still 50/50. Likewise, the laws of physics are "confirmed" through observation, and thus are no more valid than the gambler's "back run" unless you appeal to a mystical, organizing principle. The point is that scientific materialists are forced to appeal to a mystical organizing principle just as theists are. Their model simply subtracts conscious intelligence, that's all. But why should that be? In everyday life we routinely attribute organization to conscious intelligence -- why not the cosmos?

Certainly a stem cell, for example, is organized but explainable by evolution without direct appeal to intelligence -- but we need to assume the laws of physics for evolution can operate. All evolution has done is to kick the problem up another notch -- the organization of a cell is revealed to be a concrete expression of the abstract organization of the laws of physics.

One physicist said he'd believe in intelligent design if he discovered a region of the cosmos where "miracles " occurred, laws of physics not operable, chaos. Wait a minute -- order is evidence of no intelligence, chaos is evidence of intelligence? Backwards reasoning. Newton -- occult.  Find watches -- organized, evidence of intelligent design. Then we discover that the watches are made in an automated factory (evolution) -- does this prove watches were not intelligently deigned? No, because the factory itself is designed.

The universe is intelligible because the only thing that is absolutely about reality is a surpassing Intelligence -- everything else that exists is derived from this Intelligence, and it orders the universe. We don't need to establish necessity for this Intelligence because it possesses libertarian free will and thus does not have to do anything - E=mc2 doesn't even have to hold the next time it is tested. The universe is semi-predictable, however, if we assume that this Intelligence (who also possesses free will) possesses purpose, and that one of its purposes is to make the world predictable for intelligent life forms(or, if that idea seems too arrogant for us egotistical humans to flatter ourselves with, to conform the universe to the artistic principles of harmony and pattern). Yes, life is special, intelligence is special, even most atheists agree with that, otherwise there would be no need to explain the fine-tuning of the universe by concocting a multiverse.  Another potential purpose the passionate love of of mathematical beauty.

Hmm...starting to sound like somebody I know...

It's utterly obvious, folks. Scientific materialism is morally bankrupt, utterly futile intellectual vanity.

Sympathetic Literature:

The Origin of Laws.

How to Become a Religious Hypocrite in 10 Easy Lessons (Written by a Christian)

The Einstein Pool, a science fiction novel by Jake Danger
 

1. Clean the outside of the cup.

It really doesn't matter what you do, as long as you look good doing it. It is imperative, however, that you commit only those sins that are easy to disguise - actions taken out of greed, spite, envy, etc. can easily be explained while sins like smoking and drinking are harder to deny. After all, "I told the whole congregation about your [insert sin here] in order to confront you so that you would repent" will float a lot better than "What you think you see in my mouth is not really a Marlboro, you're hallucinating and need to see a doctor".

 

2. Look for the speck in your brother's eye.

Your purpose here is to accumulate power by winning moral authority over others. To do this you need a keen eye for their sins (actually they need not be sins at all, as long as they can be easily portrayed as such - playing poker or billiards, for example, or even watching Hollywood movies).

 

3. Conduct a secret war against those whose hearts and minds you mean to rule.

Now that you can spot a sin a mile away (except, of course, when it appears in mirror image), go on the attack. YOU CANNOT BE STRAIGHTFORWARD ABOUT THIS or you will be accused of being mean, judgmental and unforgiving. Instead, master the art of insinuation.

 

The most effective way is simply to call attention to things. "Hey, Darryl, is this your Budweiser in the fridge?" Of course it is since it's not yours, and you and Darryl are the only two people living in the house. But hey, you just wanted to make sure. If Darryl can't find the soup he just bought - well, you put it in the cupboard, RIGHT NEXT TO THAT CARTON OF CAMELS. Another way is to bring things up in a loving manner: "We all forgive you for [insert alleged sin here]..." thus killing two birds with one stone - calling attention to his “sin” while at the same time letting everyone know how merciful you are.

 

If Darryl is not around, you can gossip about him to your heart's content - as long as you preface it with "Let's all pray for Darryl about [insert sin here]".

 

4. Little things are important.

MAKE SURE TO SAY GRACE BEFORE EVERY MEAL (not necessary if you are eating alone). If Darryl arrives late for a meal, wait until he (hopefully) starts eating without first having received Authorization from God, and then drop the bomb - "Yeah, I already said grace before you arrived so it's OK to eat now". If he pretends not to notice, wait 30 seconds and repeat the remark. This one is brilliant - you get to call attention to his sin of Not Saying Grace (repeat: make sure to wait until he takes his first bite - after all, you can't call attention to sins he doesn't commit), and at the same time, emphasize in the most indirect manner that you're compensating for his sins by interceding to God on his behalf. Now he owes you something! You can call it in later.

 

5. Get with the program.

Hypocritical holiness is more than just a list of "don’ts" - there is a rather long list of

"do's" as well:

(1) Sing loudly, join 57 church committees; etc.

 

(2) Get the Jesus bumper sticker, the Jesus T-shirt, the Jesus bowling ball...

 

Even your email passwords should feature the name of Jesus. REMEMBER - the most important  person  you need to deceive  is YOURSELF.  After all, if you can't even deceive  yourself,  how  can you deceive  others?  Your  ultimate  goal  is to reap  the benefits that flow from unholy behavior while still retaining your good opinion of yourself. Study this article, let it seep deeply into your unconscious mind, and then forget it (consciously, anyway).

 

By the way, this is a great way to get an indulgence from God - after all, how can He charge you with sin when you're SO sincere, even in your own mind?

 

(3) Volunteer to lead a Bible study.

This serves several purposes simultaneously:

 

(i) It increases your moral authority.

Since it's your Bible study, you're the boss.

 (ii) You can win converts to hypocrisy.

In other words, it's a great way to add people to your spiritual downline. The best Bible study class is full of people with visible sins like smoking, etc. Find a subtle way to suggest to them that if they quit smoking, they will win the right to go out and, within 12 hours of quitting, chide former smoking buddies about the un-holiness of smoking.

 

After  all,  what's  more  satisfying  -  sucking  on  a  Marlboro  or  basking  in  moral authority over smokers? By now you should know a thing or two about what's really satisfying in life, and you need to light the path for others. NEVER say this directly - don't worry, they'll pick up on your example, and it's SO easy to deny...

 

(iii) It adds yet another entry to your Spiritual Resume. Boy won't God be impressed...

 

(iv) You can recruit confederates in your secret war against the Authentic. See below for details.

 

6. Don't neglect periodic token admissions of your residual sinfulness. Thus calling attention to your ASTOUNDING humility...

 

7. How to cash in

Never mind - there are a thousand subtle ways to turn power into money. Besides, doesn't the psychological power alone get you off? C'mon, admit it.

 

8. Can you still commit good, old fashioned visible sins?

Of course you can. "What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas." Just DON'T GET CAUGHT.

 

9. Know your enemy.

As a professional counterfeit your most dangerous enemy is the Authentic. In fact, his (or her) very existence  is a threat to you - standing  side by side with him, your phoniness will stand out in stark contrast. It's like kryptonite. This person must be neutralized, converted, or crucified.

 

Fortunately   these  people   are  sinners   too,  and  since  they  tend  to  focus   on transformation from the inside out, their sins are usually right up front where the whole world can see them. See above for how to attack him on this and come out smelling like a rose.

 

But an ordinary attack might not be enough; if not, extraordinary measures must be taken:

 

(i) Recruit confederates to help you. Raid your Bible study for help (don't worry, the Authentic will never attend your Bible study more than once, thus giving you another “sin” to call attention to in front of your Bible students when he's not around)

 

(ii) Spread rumors behind his back.

See above for details. If the Authentic picks up on any of this and calls you on it, gently (and indirectly) suggest that he's paranoid and advise Christian counseling. If he falls for this one, you can recommend a fellow hypocrite as counselor and in this way worm your way deep into his brain. Pretty soon you'll have him converted into twice the son of Hell that you are.

 

Your ultimate goal with the Authentic is his guilty, contrite submission to your moral authority as your subordinate, and his conversion to recruiting his own hypocritical subordinates (again adding to your spiritual down-line!).

 

If he won't submit, then he will have to be utterly discredited so that he can no longer infect others with the virus of authenticity. Stepped-up attacks on his reputation are the  most  effective.  Get  people  believing  that  he's  either  (i)  mentally  ill,  (ii)  a compulsive liar, or (iii) a sexual predator. These are the three best time-tested ways to ensure that no one will listen to the accused anymore. If that doesn’t work, accuse him of (gasp!) smoking dope.

 

You need not prove any of this - simply (and indirectly) insert a seed of doubt into the frightened minds of timid people and they will avoid him “just in case”. After a few people are avoiding him, you can subtly point out to his remaining supporters just how many people are avoiding him, thus buttressing a case that you need never admit to making in the first place!

 

Oh, the beauty of it all...

 

10. What to do if you get caught

(i) Lie your way out of it, then go on the offensive (through insinuation, of course). Emphasize how you - unlike them - never, ever “judge others”. Then proceed to lay all sorts of indirect judgments on them. Be sure to be indirect enough to maintain Plausible Deniability with respect to your true motivations; otherwise you will be accused of being not only judgmental, but hypocritical as well.

 

(ii) If you get caught lying about your lies and you can't get out of it (read: Ted Haggard, Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggert, ad nauseum, ad infintum), then make a token confession ("Ah have SINNED!" plus copious tears usually does the trick) then put the onus on them to exercise “forgiveness”. Then you're right back in business!

 

Repeat steps (1) through (10) until dead and facing God. The ultimate test of your skills will be whether or not you can pull it off one last time…


The Einstein Pool, a Christian science fiction novel by Jake Danger