Atheism Lecture in TCD this evening

robindch

From last thursday's Irish Times:

A Bright Journey from Science to Atheism at 7.30pm in the MacNeill Lecture Theatre, Hamilton Building (Near Lincoln Place Gate), TCD

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/features/2006/0420/1933951501FTSC20REVILLE.html

A bright journey to atheism, or a road that ignores all the signs?

Under the Microscope: The Nobel Laureate Dr Richard Roberts will give a public lecture entitled A Bright Journey from Science to Atheism at 7.30pm in the MacNeill Lecture Theatre, Hamilton Building (Near Lincoln Place Gate), TCD, next Monday, writes Prof William Reville

Dr David McConnell, professor of genetics at TCD, will chair the meeting and all are welcome to attend. I had a pleasant chat last week with Dr Roberts about his lecture.

Dr Richard Roberts received the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 1993, jointly with Dr Phil Sharp, for their discovery of "split genes", ie individual genes are often interrupted by sections of "junk" genetic material that doesn't code for anything. He is now chief scientific officer of New England BioLabs in the US, a key supplier to the biotechnology industry.

Dr Roberts is a member of an organisation called The Brights, an international internet constituency of individuals, described on their website http://www.the-brights.net. A Bright is defined as a person who has a naturalistic worldview, free of supernatural and mystical elements. The aim of the organisation is to promote the civic understanding and acceptance of a naturalistic worldview and to educate society towards accepting full and equitable participation of all such individuals.

All members of The Brights are non-religious and typically include agnostics, atheists, rationalists, sceptics, and so on. However, the difference between The Brights and secular humanism is not clear to me.

The Bright movement was founded in California and it feels, understandably, that it has work to do in America where science is under sustained attack from fundamentalist Christians. There is much less work in Europe for the Brights, where Christian fundamentalism is not strong and secularism is in the ascendant.

Dr Roberts is an atheist and I put it to him that atheism is a step too far for science. I suggested that agnosticism, which holds that there is insufficient evidence to support belief in the existence of a Supreme Being, as opposed to atheism which rejects outright the existence of God, is a more appropriate stand for a scientist since there is no proof that God does not exist. Dr Roberts would not accept this. He thinks the explanatory power of science and the lack of hard evidence for God makes the God-hypothesis redundant.

In Dr Roberts's experience 99 per cent of scientists are atheists. His impression here is exaggerated, according to surveys of scientists' religious beliefs. According to the last big US survey, close to 40 per cent of scientists believe in God but this figure drops to 7 per cent when the survey is confined to "top scientists". Dr Roberts is certainly a top scientist and probably circulates predominantly among top scientists. Also, he is a biologist and biologists tend to be more atheistic than other scientists, eg physicists and mathematicians.

One topic Dr Roberts will address in his lecture is the origin and evolution of religion. He believes that religion is man-made and was invented by early humans to comfort themselves in a completely uncertain world. Early man was very much at the mercy of unpredictable weather, dangerous animal predators, disease, accidents, uncertain food supplies and so on, and this, coupled with ignorance of the mechanisms that underpin the natural world must have constantly aroused high anxieties. What if the sun won't come up tomorrow? What if winter becomes permanent? And so, Dr Roberts believes, early humans invented gods who controlled the elements, to whom they could pray and whom they hoped to influence. In time, calculating individuals cynically claimed to have special access to the gods and began to mediate on behalf of the people. Thus began the priesthood and religious rituals.

I accept that this may be partly true, but not that it represents the full picture. For example, this explanation ignores any innate inner human knowing that something greater than the human exists, towards which we are inevitably drawn. In any event, even if Dr Roberts' explanation were completely true, it no more invalidates modern religions, based on teachings of eminent and holy founding figures, than alchemy invalidates modern chemistry.

Dr Roberts tells me he will illuminate his lecture with some good jokes. In that vein let me finish with an atheist joke: An atheist is swimming in the ocean. Suddenly he sees a shark in the water, so he starts swimming as fast as he can towards his boat. As he looks back he sees the shark turn and head towards him. He's scared to death, and as he turns to see the jaws of the great white beast open, revealing its teeth in horrific splendour, the atheist screams, "Oh God! Save me!"

In an instant time is frozen, a bright light shines down from above and he hears the voice of God say, "You are an atheist. Why do you call upon me when you do not believe in me?" Confused, but knowing he can't lie, the man replies, "Well, that's true, I don't believe in you, but how about the shark? Can you make the shark believe in you?" The Lord replies, "As you wish," and the light retracts back into the heavens.

As the atheist looks back he can see the jaws of the shark start to close down on him, when all of a sudden the shark stops and pulls back. Shocked, the man looks at the shark as the huge beast closes its eyes and bows its head and says, "Bless us O Lord, and these thy gifts, which of thy great bounty I am about to receive . . ."

• William Reville is associate professor of biochemistry and public awareness of science officer at UCC -[HTML][/HTML]

Dades

I'm disappointed that I can't make this. Although if the "atheist jokes" are going to be that bad, maybe not...

I wonder if it will be preaching to the converted, or if there will be any opposing views present?

Have set aside some time for a mooch about the "Brights" website. I can't help but think the name they have given themselves doesn't do anything to rebut the label of 'arrogance' oft applied to devout atheists.

monkeyfudge

What date is this on? Today or Monday next week?

Can't access the Irish Times article without a subscription.

Not too sure about the term 'bright' either... I've even read stories about people using it in the context of 'coming out' as a bright.

robindch

> What date is this on? Today or Monday next week?

This evening, and there's a map here:

http://www.tcd.ie/Maps/tcd_east.html

I agree about term "bright" -- as cringingly pompous as "faith" (and "ethos" ) is with the divinely enlightened on the other side of the fence.

Dades

robindch wrote:

as cringingly pompous as "faith" (and "ethos" )

Ahh ethos.
I ask, what would the faithless be without one?

Zombrex

The Atheist wrote:

Have set aside some time for a mooch about the "Brights" website. I can't help but think the name they have given themselves doesn't do anything to rebut the label of 'arrogance' oft applied to devout atheists.

Yeah was thinking the same, it reminds me of the episode of the Simpsons where Lisa joins Skinner, Prof Frink and Comic Book Guy in the Springfield chapter of Mensa

It annoys me this Atheist = Smart attitute that some atheists have because it gives theists mud to sling against all atheists. I don't think I am any smarter than anyone else. I do believe that religion is a delusion but believing in it has little to do with intelligence.

robindch

> Ahh, ethos. I ask, what would the faithless be without one?

"Faithless"... "FAITHLESS"??!! It's "unfaithful", please! Scrupulously selected language describing carefully-selected graduations of prejudice is what this game's all about

jtsuited

robindch wrote:

> Scrupulously selected language describing carefully-selected graduations of prejudice is what this game's all about

I thought this game was all about who had the biggest stick :rolleyes:

ferdi

i heard this bloke on pat kenny this morning, he didnt sound like he had anything new or valuble to add to the debate tbh..

JustAnother

The Atheist wrote:

Have set aside some time for a mooch about the "Brights" website. I can't help but think the name they have given themselves doesn't do anything to rebut the label of 'arrogance' oft applied to devout atheists.

There's been some comments from religious conservatives saying it proves the arrogance of atheists - sounds more like the cluelessness of the people running it. Add to that the fact that it sounds pretty much like a humanist organisation, but they don't seem to realise there are already organisations with very similar views.

JustAnother

The Atheist wrote:

Ahh ethos.
I ask, what would the faithless be without one?

A trip-hop group?

JustAnother

robindch wrote:

> Ahh, ethos. I ask, what would the faithless be without one?

"Faithless"... "FAITHLESS"??!! It's "unfaithful", please! Scrupulously selected language describing carefully-selected graduations of prejudice is what this game's all about

"To you, I'm an atheist; to God, I'm the loyal opposition" - Woody Allen :-)

JustAnother

Wicknight wrote:

It annoys me this Atheist = Smart attitute that some atheists have because it gives theists mud to sling against all atheists.

It ticks me off too - is it something related to age? I.e. do teenage atheists have more of an attitude or is age irrelevant?

I don't think I am any smarter than anyone else. I do believe that religion is a delusion but believing in it has little to do with intelligence.

Well, higher intelligence can help rationalise something to a greater extent.

fobster

So did anybody go to this lecture in the end? If so what was discussed? Any new viewpoints on the whole thing? Or was it the same old, same old.

Personally I agree with this part.

Religion is man-made and was invented by early humans to comfort themselves in a completely uncertain world. Early man was very much at the mercy of unpredictable weather, dangerous animal predators, disease, accidents, uncertain food supplies and so on, and this, coupled with ignorance of the mechanisms that underpin the natural world must have constantly aroused high anxieties. What if the sun won't come up tomorrow? What if winter becomes permanent? And so, Dr Roberts believes, early humans invented gods who controlled the elements, to whom they could pray and whom they hoped to influence. In time, calculating individuals cynically claimed to have special access to the gods and began to mediate on behalf of the people. Thus began the priesthood and religious rituals.

There is no doubting that religion is man-made, and it was used to fill the gaps in early civilisations knowledge of how the world worked, its processes and what was up there in the sky creating the storms and the thunder.

But now that we understand much of the Earth's processes, although I believe full understanding will be out of our reach for quite sometime, and thanks to space travel and aviation we can travel above the clouds and see for ourselves the empty expanse above, the need for relgion has clearly decreased as we discover more and more about the planet we live on.

robindch

> So did anybody go to this lecture in the end?

...yep, I was there. Around two-thirds of got to my mp3 recorded before the damn thing ran out of diskspace -- I'll try and edit it somehow and put it somewhere in the next few days if anybody says they're interested...

Personally, I found it well argued and well-presented.

Dades

fobster wrote:

the need for relgion has clearly decreased as we discover more and more about the planet we live on.

The need for religion is now a personal requirement, rather than a scientific one.

The fact that religion offers little insight into how the universe took the shape it holds today, hasn't changed the fact that many people still need religion for emotional, spiritual or personal needs.