Intelligence and Goodness

Last week, there was an article on the BBC website (Yeah, I know, I really need to start getting my news from more than one source) about landing the Rosetta probe on a speeding meteorite.  For reasons best known to themselves, the BBC opened it up for comment.

Strangely, specifically scientific articles seem to generate anti-theistic comments almost as much as specifically religious stories, in which posters compare religion unfavourably with science in the most scathing terms, and involving some curiously dogmatic (almost fanatical) claims about the beneficence of Science and its universal utility.  Wearily, I took up the Keyboard of Justice, and posted two or three times in defence of religious thought.

One of the responses to my posts included the following:  “(…) the fact there is a direct link between low IQ and religious beliefs says all you need to know.”

Now I’ve heard this assertion made before, most notably (and inexplicably, given the book’s stated aim of converting the religious to atheism) in The God Delusion, by Professor Dawkins.  I’ve no idea about the details of the study which turned up this interesting statistical gem, the numbers involved or whether it was conducted in a training camp in rural Somalia or an Oxford theological college, but then, as now, it strikes me as both curiously irrelevant and strangely revealing.

Curiously irrelevant, in that I’m not sure that it adds or detracts to either position in any way.  I can only assume that the intended meaning is that people with a low IQ are more likely to be wrong about these complicated sciento-philosophical questions, and mistakenly come down on the side of religion.  Obviously, those more intellectually gifted people would be able to see straight through the false claims of the liar Religion, and instead turn to the Truth and Light of Science.

Does this actually hold true though?  Is intelligence of the sort prized by the scientism of the new atheists, and measured by IQ tests, the kind of intelligence that’s required when considering the nature of the universe?  An interesting way of looking at this is provided by the roleplaying game Dungeons & Dragons, which involves rating a character by six different numerical traits.  Three cover physical abilities, while the rules divide mental ability into Intelligence and Wisdom.  The former involves book-learning, knowledge and analytical skills, while Wisdom reflects a character’s insight, perceptiveness and intuition.  I’m not saying that this is a perfect way of modelling the way people’s minds work, but the division (and a similar one is followed in many other games) can be a useful one.  When dealing with questions beyond the ability of science to provide an empirical answer to, I wonder which is more relevant, if either?

It is revealing, because I think it says much about the way such people view the universe.  As far as I can tell, and I make no claim to be an expert, intelligence is prized above all things, and the ability to apply the scientific method to any given idea or phenomenon, no matter how inappropriate.  The likelihood of being right or wrong on the nature of the universe can be estimated by a given person’s IQ.  There is an arrogant intellectualism that attaches the greatest value to intelligence, and gives little if any to what we may, in the phraseology of D&D, call wisdom, or to kindness or gentleness or charity or hopefulness.   The aggressive, proselytising atheists that make themselves heard on such boards seem remarkably uninterested in concepts like love, mercy or hope, presumably since they don’t fall within the purview of Science.  Now obviously (I hope) I’m not levelling this accusation at all atheists, since I dislike generalisations of that sort, but for the evangelical new atheist scientism-ists, the above sadly seems to be fairly accurate.

Many (in fact most) of the more or less witty sallies made against religion by individuals of this school focus on the supposed intelligence of atheists and the comparative stupidity and gullibility of theists.  Morality and questions of Right and Wrong, of how we should conduct our lives, rarely if ever seem to enter into it.  Type ‘Atheist Quotes’ into google, and you will see plenty of more or less cutting attacks on the intelligence and gullibility of the religious.  Type in ‘Christian Quotes’ and you will find that most are concerned not with belittling others, but in how to live well, and with faith, hope and love.

I know which I hold to be more important.  If I was to be given a binary choice as to whether I would want to live amongst the intelligent or the good, I would choose the latter without hesitation, although obviously I’d take people who are both for preference.

Focussing on intellectualism in this way also leaves hanging the question of something else as well: Happiness.  Ignorance is bliss, as the saying goes, and while that is demonstrably rarely actually true, it is also true that the most intelligent people are seldom the most contented.

Assuming that it must be one or the other, give me a world of dull but blissful tranquillity over a world of intelligent, amoral strife any day!

The Right to be Wrong Part 2: Stuck in the Middle With You

It would be easy to get the impression from this blog that I get all my news from the BBC.  Well, that’s pretty much the case, except when I go on Russia Today to get the opposite side of the story, and become slightly frightened.  This week the BBC website had a story about atheists in the United States, and the fact that (according to the story) they are effectively an oppressed minority in some parts.

A couple of posts ago, I was defending the right of more traditional Christians to hold and act on their beliefs in the face of secular society.  This time, I will be upholding the right of atheists to hold and act on their lack of belief in the face of religious society.  It is the problem (and, in some ways I suppose the privilege) of being a wishy-washy medium-liberal moderate.  I sit in the middle, arguing the cause of one end to the other and vice-versa, with “why can’t we all just get along?” as my plaintive refrain.

In the increasingly secular (and increasingly vocally so) UK, the concept that atheists might be oppressed for their lack of belief might seem strange, at least outside of certain Middle Eastern or African fundamentalist Muslim countries.  Although officially religion and politics are mixed here, with bishops in the House of Lords and an Established Church, in reality they very rarely come into contact.  “We don’t do God” is the famous quote from the Blair administration (which is ironic seeing as he’s quite a staunch Catholic nowadays).  Recently Mr. Cameron said a few things about faith, and having confidence in being Christian and, while they were appreciated, caused quite a lot of uncomfortable shuffling even amongst many Christians.  Similarly, British patriotism tends to be of a quiet and understated sort, except for the Last Night of the Proms, which is the only socially acceptable occasion in which one is allowed to get noisy and enthusiastic about it.  In this country, being overly enthusiastic about religion, especially for a politician is simply not done.

Our colonial cousins on the other hands expect their politicians to be openly and vocally religious.  According to the story linked to above, there is not a single openly atheist politician in the US.  This seems bizarre to me, since in the UK, while I assume that most politicians are atheist, or at best agnostic, very few of them are openly Christian (except, one might hope, for the Bishops who are only politicians, at least public politicians, part time).  In our increasingly secular society, the idea of ‘coming out’ and admitting your atheism seems strange, since it (or perhaps a vague unconscious agnosticism) is generally seen as the default position unless otherwise stated.  It is a bigger step to ‘admit’ to people that you’re religious.  The fact that by stating their unbelief, people in (parts, at least, of) America face ostracism or outright abuse seems incredible.

It need not be said that I think that atheists are mistaken, and I would like to be able to convince them of that if I were capable, but as I have said in that earlier post, what is far more important than being right is the right to be wrong.  It can be easy sometimes to forget that the vast majority of atheists are not of the loud, aggressive and mocking Dawkinsian school, and that indeed most are of the quiet, live-and-let-live type, who simply want to be able to believe what they want, and get on with their lives.

If I go through that article and replace the word ‘atheist’ with ‘Christian’, it immediately becomes even more offensive to me, although of course it shouldn’t.  Ultimately, if I want the right to believe what I want and not be ashamed of it, the right to be able to say what I want and have no-one try and shut me up, then I need to be equally rigorous in upholding that right in others; those whose beliefs are opposed to my own, those whose beliefs are offensive to me, and even those who believe that I should not have the rights that I will fight for them to enjoy.

Ultimately, as Someone once said, “Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you.”  And, perhaps even more pertinently, “Love those who hate you, bless those who curse you.”

The Nature of the Debate

Recently, one of my friends on Facebook shared a picture, showing a copy of the Bible, the Koran and Mr Tickle.  Next to each one respectively, it said ‘Proof that God exists’, ‘Proof that Allah exists’, and ‘Proof that Mr. Tickle exists’.  At the bottom, in large letters was the caption ‘Religious Logic’.

Even ignoring the obvious theological inaccuracy, I took issue with this, and commented on the picture saying “Replace the word ‘Religious’ with ‘Fundamentalist’ and I might agree.  Assuming or implying that fundamentalism and extremism are representative of religion as a whole, or that ‘religion’ is at all homogenous’ is helpful to no-one.”

However, this does indeed seem to be the primary tactic that evangelical atheists (not that the friend in question is one of these) are using.  Another (particularly objectionable) image I’ve seen online, and which I’ve seen quoted elsewhere reads ‘Science flies men to the moon.  Religion flies them into buildings’.  In this case ‘religion’ is equated with hyper-extremist Islam.  In this case not even ‘Fundamentalism flies them into buildings’ would be even slightly accurate.  One may as well say ‘Religion builds homeless shelters.  Science builds gas-chambers’. 

However, it is very important to remember that the opposite is also true, and something like the above may well be floating around the internet somewhere.  Many theists hear the word ‘atheist’ and instantly assume Dawkinsian ranting, ignorance and offensiveness.  I have no doubt that some people hear the word ‘Muslim’ and instantly think ‘Al-Quaeda’.

Increasingly everybody is being persuaded that there are ‘Them’ and there are ‘Us’, and all of Them are at the uttermost extreme end of the Them spectrum.  These are deeply harmful assumptions that make what should be an intelligent and earnest debate into a scornful and dismissive slanging match.

I have been spoiled somewhat by being fortunate enough to have been able to mix with pleasant, deeply intelligent people with a wide spectrum of well thought-out, sincerely held beliefs, and who were capable of discussing these beliefs with others who strongly disagreed with them in a spirit of amiable, intelligent debate.  At university, I mixed with Christians of various denominations, agnostics of every shade, atheists, Buddhists, pagans and occultists.  It was during these discussions that I fully came to grips with exactly what it is that I myself believe, and why.  My beliefs were proofed and tested.  Some were found wanting, and modified or discarded.  Others were refined, tempered and polished.  I hope that I provided the same service for the people that I was discussing with.

I left university expecting to be able to have the same level of discussion about things like religion that I enjoyed previously, and it was something of a shock to discover that not only are many people apparently incapable of holding such discussions, they do not seem to even want to.  They would prefer to pour scorn and vitriol on their opponents, and willingly generalise them as all being like the most extreme and unpleasant aspects of their chosen groups, and completely refuse to acknowledge that any of their beliefs could possibly require modification or re-thinking, on any level at all.

Unhappily, it is also often these extremes that are the most visible and shout the loudest, and which are the most unpleasant to any dissenters, discouraging the more moderate, tolerant people from becoming involved at all.

Thus, rather than each debate being a bridge over a wide chasm, leading to deeper understanding and a mutual respect of the positions held, and an appreciation of a different point of view, each one serves to widen the gap, hurt feelings and make the discussions I enjoyed at university ever less likely, and that saddens me deeply.

Theory, Experience and Understanding

One of the criticisms of religion that I frequently come across online is that religion (usually taken as a single homogenous phenomena) deliberately discourages questioning and enquiry.  One of the pithy catch-phrases I’ve seen is:  “Science has questions that can’t be answered.  Religion has answers that can’t be questioned.”  The apparent assumption is that if you’re religious, you have to take everything ‘on faith’, as opposed to science, where everything is (supposedly) based on fact, experiment and evidence, and where questioning is not only encouraged but mandatory.

Now, that’s never been my experience, at least of religion.  I’ve always been encouraged to question, and to consider everything, including religion, critically.

I think that the problem is that religion is not something to which the scientific method can really be applied.  Religion is accused of starting with the conclusion, and then trying to find the facts to justify it, rather than gathering the facts and using them to form a theory.  The implication (and quite often the explicit demand) is ‘Prove that God exists’, as though you can gather your facts and link them up to form a cohesive ‘theory of God’.  To me though, trying to apply this method to religion is like telling a child not to open their eyes until they have studied optics and electromagnetics. 

Sometimes, you have to start with an experience, then work to try and understand it.  We don’t start with a theory of rainbows or flowers.  We can see them; it’s a direct experience.  We can then start to ask how we are able to see them, and why they look the way they do, and we can philosophise about whether different people see the same thing when they look at an object as everyone else, but the fact that there is a flower isn’t really open to debate or investigation.  It’s not a theory, it’s an experience.

The problem I have is that often the people I talk to don’t have that shared experience, and don’t understand a non-scientific, non-evidence-based way of looking at the world, and so it’s almost impossible to get across my point.  I’ve come across two quotes, one by St Augustine, and one by Thomas Aquinas that resonate quite a lot:

“Seek not to understand, that you may believe, but to believe, that you may understand.”  St Augustine.

“If you believe, no explanation is needed.   If you don’t, no explanation is possible.”  Thomas Aquinas

On Evil (Part 3)

The existence and abuse of choice, and the nature of the world

 

This is quite an easy one.  If there is an option for us to do good, then by definition, there must also be the option not to do good.  As has been said by someone once, often that is enough for evil to triumph.  As well as a simple lack of action, there is often the option to do something actively evil.

So why would God give us the option of doing evil, or even of not doing good?  If God desires good, why would He even allow the option of evil?

This comes down to the issue of Free Will, which to me is one of the most important theological and philosophical concepts (Can you tell that I have Arminian inclinations?).  Humans have been given the faculty of choice.  We have been told multiple times, and through various different channels which choice God wants us to take, but ultimately, the choice is ours.  Thus, if we choose Good, it truly is Good.  If there was no choice, it wouldn’t be good.  There is no merit in an automaton following its programming.  I don't think anyone has ever praised a train-driver for his navigation.

And when it comes to evil in the sense of pain, of suffering caused not by people directly, but by natural disaster, it seems to me that there is something similar.  As far as I can tell, these diseases, floods, famines etc are just consequences of the way the world is formed.  The possibility of harvests neccesitates the possibilty of famines.  The existence of life-sustaining water results in the possibility of life-destroying floods.  Could God have created a universe in which you can't drown, or in which crops can't fail?  Of course.  It would require a complete reworking of the laws by which the universe operates, but God could quite easily create a world without the possibility of suffering.  But then, it would not be this world, and we would probably be complaining about someting else instead.

As was pointed out by the villain in the horrendous Hellblazer film they made with Keannu Reaves, what we think of as virtues are really reactions to some form of adversity.  Courage can only exist when we are afraid, and thus when there is something to be afraid of.  Fortitude can only exist when there is suffering to deal with.  Strength can only exist when there are burdens.  For there to be hope, there must be despair.  For compassion, others must be suffering too.  This is not to say that God causes others to suffer just so that you could win some brownie points by being compassionate, but without that suffering, there could be no compassion at all.



So those were my thoughts on evil.  Something a bit more fun for the next one I think!