Atheist Authors Lex Bayer and John Figdor Struggle With Logic

While this started as a review of an article at Salon, it has turned into a partial review of a partial bit of a book, and a bio. The book excerpt was at Salon, and the personal sketch was at MyTown, links below. The book is called, "Atheist Mind, Humanist Heart".
It is yet another attempt to repackage Atheism as a moral pursuit, but without principles. So they attempt to come up with some principles, and the initiation of that attempt is described below.

The new atheist commandments: Science, philosophy and principles to replace religion

The authors of this new book, titled,"Atheist Mind, Humanist Heart: Rewriting the Ten Commandments for the Twenty-first Century" (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, $32, 188 pages)" are challenging the Ten Commandments, claiming that their new commandments are better than God's. This is a bold statement, arrogant enough to consider what revelations in logic analysis these two authors might have for us.

"We begin by suggesting a framework of secular belief. It begins with the simple question, How can I justify any of my beliefs?

When thinking about why we believe in anything, we quickly realize that every belief is based on other preexisting beliefs. Consider, for example, the belief that brushing our teeth keeps them healthy. Why do we believe this? Because brushing helps removes plaque buildup that causes teeth to decay.

But why do we believe plaque causes decay? Because our dentists, teachers, and parents told us so. Why do we trust what our dentist says? Because other dentists and articles and books we’ve read confirmed it. Why do we believe those accounts? Because they presented many more pieces of information confirming the link between plaque, bacterial growth, and tooth decay. And why do we believe those pieces of information?

There seems to be no end."

At this point the authors reach the infinite regress issue. They have already demonstrated that their logic is outside of Aristotelian logic because no valid and true deductive argument is based on "preexisting beliefs". In order for a deductive argument to be valid, it must have a certain form; in order to be true it must be supported only by true premises, grounded in self-evident first principles. But on they go:

"...the process of justifying beliefs based on other beliefs never ends—unless at some point we manage to arrive at a belief that doesn’t rely on justification from any prior belief. That would be a foundational source of belief.

But this creates a paradox of its own: we can only justify a belief by basing it ultimately on source beliefs, and source beliefs by definition have no justifying beliefs. So the only way to justify a particular belief is to start with an unjustifiable belief.

It’s like getting down to the last turtle to find it resting on … nothing at all.

How maddening! Instead of clarifying how we can decide what to believe, we’ve instead proven that the only way to justify beliefs is to acknowledge that certain principles must be accepted without justification."

Logic for them apparently is too much to handle - no wonder it's maddening; failing to recognize actual universal axioms, they presume that justification extends beyond accessibility, or at least is not accessible to them. No, self-evident truth is not a paradox, and they have not "proven" that; it's merely a lack of education and comprehension on their part: either they do not recognize self-evidence, or they have not heard of the First Principles of Thought given to the world by Aristotle, taught in every Logic 101 class, and presented in every logic text. Let's go through their whole conundrum and try to analyze their logic by comparing it with Aristotelian, disciplined deductive process.

"One approach to this challenge is to treat the problem the same way mathematicians approach proofs: they determine a core set of assumptions and then prove theorems based on those assumptions. Instead of presuming source beliefs are beliefs based on faith, let’s instead regard them as the starting assumptions for a logical proof. We can put forth a set of core assumptions and then develop a broader system of belief based on those assumptions. If the resulting system fails to create a cohesive and comprehensive system of belief, then we can start over. The initial assumptions can then be reformulated until a set is found that does lead to a consistent, meaningful “theorem of life.”"

And so they go completely awry and off the rails into the abyss, merely because they have not studied actual logic and have taken upon themselves to develop their own system. Aristotle and 25 centuries of logic students must be spinning in their graves.

What they propose here is to create arguments on varying sets of subjective starting principles, rather than principles which are self-evidently correct axioms of existence and truth, i.e., the First Principles. If the argument's conclusion turns out wrong with this particular set of starting premises, then try another set of subjective starting principles, different from previous sets of principles. Repeat, until your selection of "basic principles" finally gets the answer you like. If you like the answer, then you like the premises you have selected to support your answer.

The process of selecting premises to support a conclusion is a logic failure called "rationalizing". It is entirely different from discerning the principles of geometry by starting with a rectangle of known characteristics, then cutting it diagonally corner to corner and thus by previously knowing the area of the rectangle, dividing by two, the equation for the triangle is developed because the equation for the rectangle is known. In geometry the answer can be known true even visually, before the equation is developed (Area of a triangle=1/2(LxW)).

But this is not the case for disciplined deduction. Deduction of the Aristotelian genre (still taught in Logic 101 classes today) requires that there be known, completely true, First Principle grounded premises in order for an argument to be declared true - and further, the argument must be of correct form in order to be valid; and the problem of incorrect form comes up for these two, below.

Next they put into play "logic principles" the first of which is not actually a principle of logic, starting with Ockham's Razor:

"Two other ideas may be useful in selecting a set of starting assumptions. The first is to favor simplicity. This is called Ockham’s razor, after the fourteenth-century philosopher and theologian William of Ockham."

Einstein blew this away as a necessary part of logic when he demolished Bohr's simplistic model with his proof of Brownian motion; Einstein observed that a thing "should be as simple as possible, but not simpler". Ockham's Razor failed, demonstrably and scientifically, and it is not an immutable principle of logic; it is merely a suggestion.

However, the authors strike paydirt with their version of Reduction Ad Absurdum, which they should have applied to the First Principles before making arguments with random sets of premises.

"A second tool for choosing basic source beliefs is to think about what it would mean to deny a particular source belief. In other words, if a particular belief were not true, would the resulting worldview make sense?"

But they charge ahead toward the cliff of Materialism.

"We propose that to develop a coherent framework of factual belief, we need to accept three core assumptions:

1. An external reality exists.
2. Our senses perceive this external reality.
3. Language and thought are tools for describing and understanding what our senses perceive.

Here they go clear over the cliff: There is an obvious set of external reality which our senses do not perceive and that includes much of quantum mechanical functioning which is a verified science, as well as the nature of consciousness and agency which we detect only via their consequences and not their causes. This failure is explained in their next list:

"The First Three Non-commandments...

"To rephrase the three core assumptions in light of the concepts we have just discussed, our starting assumptions are:

1. An external reality exists, and “truth” signifies an accurate description of that reality.
2. Our five senses are our only means for perceiving this reality.
3. Language and thought offer ways to analyze, communicate about, and contemplate the nature of the reality.

These core assumptions can be summed up as (1) a belief in existence, (2) an ability to perceive that existence, and (3) instruments for using those perceptions."

In "rephrasing" and especially then in their summary, the authors are changing meanings slightly. Initially they implied an external, physical reality; now they have changed over to an implication of "all existence", and further the implication that all existence can be perceived, physically. They have illegitimately smuggled in the necessity of Philosophical Materialism, merely by wording prestidigitation.

By eliminating any possibility of knowing anything about non-physical reality via logical deduction, they have artificially restricted all reality and knowledge to material "things" which physically exist, and can be perceived by our senses. This is a dishonest restriction, both because it is hidden in implication, and because it summarily dismisses other options without even recognizing their possibility of existing.

But they take upon themselves to declare Three Commandments, based on faux "bedrock beliefs", i.e. faux first principles:

"Because these three assumptions are the bedrock beliefs of all subsequent beliefs we will propose, they will serve as the first three non-commandments:

"I. The world is real, and our desire to understand the world is the basis for belief.
II. We can perceive the world only through our human senses.
III. We use rational thought and language as tools for understanding the world."

So what they have done is to declare slippery principles which they declare to be non-commandments, that are actually rationalized conclusions which they are using to justify whatever set of first principles they need in order to produce those conclusions. This is circular and blatantly so: the conclusions are used to justify the premises, and the premises are selected to justify the conclusions. And it is also the logic failure of Affirming the Consequent. Further, as we have shown above, their logic chain is not based on actual First Principles, rather it is designed to smuggle in an ideology, that of Philosophical Materialism. Nonetheless, for them it is necessary in order to justify their march toward justifying Atheism. Certainly that is the point of the book. Bayer and Figdor are logic chopping, seeking only to justify their foregone conclusion, not seeking to allow Aristotelian, grounded, deductive logic to dictate a rational conclusion to which they must be bound. And again that is the definition of rationalization, a logic fallacy.

The idea that this represents "science and philosophy" as replacement principles for religion is absurd, maximally, due to its completely false use of "logic" to rationalize their desired outcome. There is no "science" involved and if logic is a subset of their "philosophy", then their philosophy is logically absurd.

Let's do an actual Reductio Ad Absurdum (which they have not done); but first reality under their theory:

1. If material existence is all that exists, then thoughts, memories and consciousness must be material "things".
But:
2. When dead brains are removed and analyzed, there are no lumps of dead qualia, thoughts, dead memories, dead consciousness or dead intellect that are found; this leaves qualia, thoughts, memories, consciousness and intellect outside of physical existence, and under Philosophical Materialism, then, they don't exist. That's why Atheist philosophers concentrate on proving that they all are delusions.

3. When death occurs, life stops but there is no change in mass or energy in the system at that moment. Yet the system changes over from an open system to a closed system, and from negative entropy to positive entropy. Such systemic reversal at death requires a radical systemic change which is not physically detectable as changes in mass/energy. Possibly the losses are just brain states, but the brain is massively parallel and not clocked, so there are no discernable brain states. Under Materialism this is inexplicable.

Now if we take the contrary, i.e., allowing for the possibility of non-physical existence:

1. If more exists than just physical existence, then qualia thoughts, memories and consciousness might be non-physical. Thus they would not be found as physical lumps in a dead brain.

2. When dead brains are removed and analyzed, the absence of lumps of thoughts, memories, consciousness and intellect lumps is not contradictory.

3. When death occurs and life stops, the systemic changes which are not physically detectable as changes in mass/energy are not inconsistent with life being a non-physical attribute. Relying on non-existant brain states or other fabricated explanatory stories is not necessary.

It is the contrary to the authors' proposition which is reasonable, and the authors' Materialist proposition itself which is faulty. Materialism fails the Reductio logic test.

Presupposing the answer by smuggling the answer into the premises, is anti-rational. It is indicative of ideology-driven false "logic" procedures.

Presumably these two authors will continue with the rest of their hypotheses in Salon at some later date. Hopefully I will see that and will snag it as it floats by so it can be analyzed also.

... ...

But now I see that there is more on these two:

"Atheism's friendlier, humanist face"

"Bayer and Figdor want to emphasize atheism's "humanist" values. A humanist, they say, is someone who believes in the goodness of human beings and seeks rational ways to solve human problems.

Their book is set up as a series of steps that lead readers through the basics of using inductive reasoning and classic philosophical approaches. Bayer and Figdor also offer up their own version of the 10 commandments, which they call their "non-commandments." Their non-commandments, which include the belief that people can use rational thought as a tool for understanding the world, led both to conclude there is no life after death. "Some people might say 'I don't know' is a more appropriate answer, since I've never experienced death," Figdor says. "I've never encountered a mind without a brain. So if the brain dies, it's reasonable to assume the mind that lives in that brain dies with it."

They also reject the idea of an "objective morality" or an absolute moral truth. They argue instead for a "subjective morality," which guides people to understand their own thought processes so they can choose how to act in any given situation.

For those who fear this approach gives rise to a dangerous moral relativism, Bayer and Figdor say humans operate out of "enlightened self-interest," which teaches them they are more likely to be happy and get what they want if they cooperate. Humans also are biologically hard-wired to be empathetic and be interested in the happiness of others.

"I take pride in conducting my life in a moral manner and in my ability to derive happiness from the happiness of others," Bayer says. "I feel good when my friends think of me as a person of high morals and integrity."

The reason that Atheists use inductive reasoning is so that they can do the types of false arguments which are shown above. Creating a universal category of all-X to put observations into requires finding only items which are already in that category, such as Xn, Xn+1, etc. If it is a universal category, then no instance of a non-X can be found. But if a logic chopper encounters an unwanted and inconvenient Y which refutes the all-X proposition, then its existence is denied as a delusion, or the Y is claimed to actually be an X and we will know that some day. Thus finding objects which fit into Category X becomes a triviality, a banal pursuit devoid of meaning, because the process makes ALL objects fit into category X, with no proof that such is actually the case. I.e., X is universally the case with nothing existing which is not an Xn - because we have defined all objects that way for the convenience of the desired conclusion: intellectual fraud.

And again, that's why Atheists use induction and eschew deduction.

It is interesting to note the two non-coherent positions: "conducting my life in a moral manner" and "...argue instead for a 'subjective morality'..." Obviously if a person defines his own morality, then he will consider himself moral; the sliding scale of "...choos(ing) how to act in any given situation" makes one perfectly moral in "any given situation" - how could he go wrong? Resulting in a tautological position of perpetual "morality" regardless of what he does makes morality a completely useless word, in fact a mockery of something that conceptually means something else entirely. It is, in fact, the opposite of a moral system; it is a justification for whatever behavior one chooses to be called what it is not: moral.

I am moral because I decide what is moral.
I decide what is moral, therefore I am moral.

He cannot be immoral or amoral under his own system, so his claim to be moral cannot be falsified - under his own system. It is tautological, having defined himself as moral, regardless of his behaviors. But if judged by a different, absolute moral system, rather than his own sloppy self-referential definitional system, he would be beholden to something other than himself and his own variable moral principles. And that would not sit well with him because it would place constraints on him from which he is otherwise free. The whole point is this: No Constraints. It's how Atheists roll.

As for friendly humanism, re-read the three Humanist Manifestos, starting with the First Manifesto and comparing the latter manifestos with the first. Humanism was, and is, totalitarian, because humanists are the moral authorities who desire to place their moral principles (non-principles? hardly) on the rest of society, and all its institutions. Dawkins is a humanist; PZ is a humanist; Silverman is a humanist. Look carefully at every Atheist who wants to eradicate all religion and all absolutes and to Atheize government, schools, and all of society, and you will find a humanist behind the hate. And analyze for yourself whether humans, especially Atheists, are hardwired to be empathetic. Try to find the empathy which the American Atheists, or the Freedom From Religion Foundation, or the New Atheists, and especially the Humanist/Free Thinkers display, say during their "Reason Rallies" or conferences where women are afraid to attend.

The claims of these two authors are glaringly, painfully absurd.

Note: Excerpted from “Atheist Mind, Humanist Heart” by Lex Bayer and John Figdor. Copyright © Rowman & Littlefield.

ADDENDUM:
Found at reddit, a Q&A with Bayer and Figdor who both respond to this question:

When and how did you both become atheists?

Lex_Bayer [responds]
Hi. I started questioning my religion and God in high school. I went to a Jewish Day School in South Africa. In the book I relate the moment when I realized that I should start thinking more for myself. It was after performing the Jewish ritual of Kapparot. In college I took the time and energy to think about these things more deeply and from that point forward was comfortable letting people know that I am an atheist.

John_Figdor [responds]
I became an atheist, somewhat ironically, during confirmation class as I was becoming a member of the UCC church where I grew up. Reading the Bible cover to cover, and discussing it with other broadly secularly-minded Christians helped me understand that I didn’t get my beliefs and values from a 2,000 year old book.

It is very common for adolescents to reject everything which represents authority, especially authority to limit their behaviors. A very high percentage of Atheists from Bertrand Russell to Dawkins, etc. gained "freedom" in their pubescent periods, well before the maturation of their frontal cortex which does not occur in some until the age of 28. So that, plus their logic attempts to justify that, explains their rejection. And that is far more explanatory than their faulty logic.

Mehta and Humanism

Over at Mehta's "Friendly Atheist" site, he has posted a reader's image without critique. I reproduce the image here:

This is a cartoon in the form of a chart. Let's take the items one at a time, Christian side first.

First, Christianity is based on the admonition to "question everything". There are a great many churches who invite non-believers to bring their concerns to the fore and discuss them. While there is some point where Atheism as a belief diverges from Christianity as a belief, there is plenty of dogma on the Atheist side to which a Christian would have to assent in order to convert from Christianity to Atheism.

For example, Philosophical Materialism and its offshoot, determinism, are requirements, and anyone presupposing dualism is rejected as an incompetent Atheist. Also: the immaculate conception of the universe, of the laws of physics, of mind, of consciousness, and of life on earth as well as the denial of agency and free will, are all necessary dogmas under Atheism.

Second, Christianity is divisive both when it is abused by Christians, and when Atheists become incensed at having moral consequences injected into their way. But under biblical Christianity, their is no abuse, except for the placement of moral consequences onto a libertinist populace. What Atheists see as abuse actually is the limitations of human actions, which they want none of. And rejection of limitations of human actions is precisely what produced the Atheist atrocities visited on very large portions of humanity by Atheist governments.

Third, Atheists are ignorant of the science which they promote as their own. There are no Atheist scientific "Facts", as touted in the chart; there are merely scientific contingent factoids, most of which are failing to produce any real knowledge at the moment due to being incomplete or flat out wrong. Atheists who make the claim in the chart are illiterate in both current science and extablished logic. Not to mention the philosophy of science.

Also, Atheists (who hate literalism) always take every sentence of the Bible literally. While there are a few Christians who do this, it is neither necessary nor sufficient for the theist to argue theism without fear of refutation.

Fourth, as discussed above, questioning and doubt are NOT disallowed by Christianity. To make this claim, the Atheists has to be either ignorant about that which he makes claims, or he is dishonest in making them.

Now let's discuss the Humanist side of the chart:

First, "socialized ethics" is not a morality, and not all humanists adhere to it. (First Humanist Manifesto). The idea of basing ethics in a social environment is merely situational ethics. And situational ethics is not ethical at all, and definitely not a set of moral principles. The idea that humanists subscribe to a set of common morals is false.

Second, humanists use a purely materialist belief in "reality", which they do not question, nor attempt to prove in any fashion. Nor do they question their Atheism, or their lack of real morals, or their personal elitism, or their concept of utopia made in their image, or anything of their own creation. In fact, the only questioning they do is of cartoon religion. They do not address actual theist claims, ever, because they cannot. Nor do they ever prove their own beliefs, because they cannot.

Third, the reason that Atheists and humanists are distrusted is NOT for using reason; they are distrusted because their morality is unknown and unknowable, being either situational, Leftist totalitarian, or personally congruent elitism (or all three or none). So this pitch is an attempt to claim victimhood from the high ground, which humanists do not actually occupy.

Just because humanists like to "think up" some morals that they want everyone to accept and adhere to, does not make the humanist a reasoning creature, much less rational. If anything, the New Man humanist is a wannabe dictator, who very likely wears a Che tee-shirt and demands economic equality for himself, to be taken out of the possessions of others and redistributed to him.

Humanism is a pretend space where intellectual miscreants gather to propose their victimhood to each other, and to fantasize their elitist, messiahist takeover of society while marching arm in arm toward their personal control of the global utopia in their religion-hate-fevered minds.

By publishing such falseness, Mehta demonstrates once again that he is not actually "friendly", but publishes false accusations and hate propaganda frequently.

Humanist Petition For Subversion of the Sovereign Integrity of the USA

Title:

Atheists and Humanists Condemn Human Rights Crisis at the U.S. Border and Nativist Attacks against Undocumented Immigrants

"The influx of Central American families and unaccompanied minors at the U.S. border has escalated into a human rights crisis which some have exploited to make xenophobic, racist and nativist attacks against undocumented immigrants and refugees. Over the past few months, thousands of underage youth fleeing violence and instability in their native countries have been warehoused in substandard Homeland Security facilities. According to the ACLU some have suffered abuse at the hands of border officials. This week, angry protestors stormed and turned away buses full of predominantly women and children detainees in Murrieta, California. These attacks will only increase, as they are part of a national climate of hatred, hostility and discrimination against undocumented individuals and their families (which are often of mixed citizenship status) and communities. These attacks have been encouraged by the Republican-controlled House’s refusal to pass a comprehensive humane immigration bill that is informed by the progressive legacy of civil and human rights resistance forged by disenfranchised communities in this country.

As humanists and atheists of conscience, we find this climate of demonization morally and politically reprehensible. We categorically condemn the anti “illegal” immigrant and anti-human rights vitriol promoted by Republicans like California Congressman Darrell Issa who has called for the Obama administration to rescind its Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy. We fundamentally oppose the Obama administration’s escalation of deportation on the grounds that it is inhumane, breaks up families, and exposes both undocumented and citizen youth to sexual exploitation, foster care placement, homelessness and incarceration.

As humanists and atheists of conscience, we strongly support the administration’s DACA policy, as well as regional efforts to ensure equity, access and opportunity for undocumented youth in education and employment. We support humane efforts to resolve the refugee crisis at the border peacefully—including providing unaccompanied youth with just legal representation, immigration relief and humanitarian protection—while respecting the dignity and human rights of unaccompanied youth and their families.

Recently, the Obama administration expressed a willingness to bypass the obstructionists of the House on immigration reform. As humanists and atheists of conscience we believe that the administration’s commitment must address the climate of racist demonization that prevails in this country, as well as equitably uphold democratic rights for undocumented and other disenfranchised communities.

Signatories:

Maggie Ardiente, The American Humanist Association

Toni Achebe Bell, Black Skeptics Group

Richard Carrier, Author

Greta Christina, Author/Activist

Rebecca Hensler, Grief Beyond Belief

Sikivu Hutchinson, Black Skeptics Los Angeles

Yvonne Divans Hutchinson, Educator

Anthony Pinn, Professor and author

Amy Roth, Los Angeles Atheist Women’s Group & Skepchick

Secular Woman

Aishah Shahidah Simmons, Spiritualist in Solidarity & Filmmaker/Activist

Hilaire Sobers, Skeptically Speaking

Frederick Sparks, Black Skeptics Group

Kimberly Veal, Black Freethinkers Network/POCBF

Donald Wright, Houston Black Non-Believers"
[emphasis added]

Treason-Chic. Demonize the Other; Clothe it in "morality" (Saul Alinsky)

Humanism Is Not About All Humans, It's Just About Atheists

Headline:

Grieving California mom takes down cross on road after group’s protest, more appear

This is an official act of empathy from the American Humanist Association in Washington, DC. Humanism is about control over the Other; it always has been from the days of Auguste Comte, and it always will be. The separation of church and state covers only Congress; all of the Stare Decisus judicial activist rulings which have perverted the First Amendment are made to favor Atheism as the official religion (called Secularism).

A Humanist Ruminates

This letter from a humanist contained this plaint:

"Imagine, if you can, a few hundred atheists getting together to build a town where no religions will be permitted. This is an extremely unlikely scenario. It would be much too sterile and insipid for us. Atheists are generally Humanists who are very interested in getting to know humans (hence the term Humanist), and understanding people, their religions and their culture.

Atheists tend to be totally non-self-aware. The history of Atheist governments is there for anyone to read (I know, history has been sanitized in the schools; that's no excuse). Humanism was actually a driver for the Atheist movements of the early 20th Century, which, for you who might not have gotten ancient history in school, was the beginning of the Atheist-Communist terrors which plunged Russia and China into blood. The Mao/Stalinists didn't find much in Atheism to guide them, but in the First Humanist Manifesto there was plenty.

The humanist moves on:

I find it curious that Delic and Alnuweiri are so passionate about allowing people to wear religious clothing, when they wear neither a hijab, a turban nor any religious items themselves. I wonder too, how they would feel if they visited a government office and were served by someone wearing a T-shirt with the Atheist Bus campaign message: “There’s probably no God — now stop worrying and enjoy your life.” Would they feel uncomfortable?

Again, Atheists who declare themselves moral by their own authority and under their own theory of morality actually think that others should see them to be as moral as they themselves (which is the apogee of moral perfection, tautologically). The absurdity of that completely swishes past over their heads with no cognition whatsoever. At least with a hijab, a turban (which is probably not even a religious symbol), etc, one knows the worldview of the person they are in contact with. That is impossible with Atheists, who have only a rejectionist Void, or worse: an elitist humanist messiah complex as a worldview, with a relativist morality which suits the occasion as the Atheist sees fit.

However, I do think it would be a good idea for them to wear identifying T-shirts.

The Atheist Media Outlet

(As if almost all media outlets are not Atheist). There is a new source of indoctrination available to Atheists.

Atheists Launch ‘Godless’ Media Outlet

The picture which accompanies the article shows the focus:

There are several things to notice here:

First, Evolution is a tenet of Atheism; it is being foisted off on toddlers.

Second, evolution is being misrepresented by the long refuted "peppered moth" ploy.

Third, the sidebar is devoted mostly to evolution.

The Humanist is not likely to revisit the Humanist Manifesto I. That's because Humanism is an accumulation of the religiously deluded.

Humanism: Everything For Everybody

Roy Speckhardt promotes his humanism at HuffPo:

”While religious movements generally depend on convincing their adherents that they are part of a divinely chosen in-group and all others are not, humanism is founded on the consensus that we are all human and that the notion of an out-group in and of itself is an obstacle to our advancement. Though religious people may strive to better the lives of all, their efforts are often limited by the existence of an unavoidable hurdle: all who don't follow their faith are part of the out-group. So no matter how much one faith may wish lower the wall that separates them from another, there will always be a tripping stone between them -- it is exactly this block that a humanistic approach helps us step over.

Overcoming barriers put in place by religion, ideology, geography, and the like, is frequently attainable. In fact, it is the sort of feat often repeated in history. In hunter-gatherer times, humans extended the circle of empathy to their family unit alone. Over generations, this circle has grown, from family, to tribe, to nation-state, and even further. The events in Norway are a reminder of the desperate need for humanity to continue evolving our ability to empathize until we view our world as inhabited by one people.”

Which Manifesto will this coming Humanist conference choose? Maybe a new one, one that will explain how human nature will magically be morphed into a compliant, altruistic one which voluntarily gives up considering its own needs and issues first? Because if they have a plan for that, I certainly am interested in hearing it.

The most recent manifestos, however, merely bleat on about how it would be so nice if folks would just co-operate and be more, you know, empathetic. If folks would just behave differently from how they have always behaved and start to behave how they have never behaved, wouldn’t the world be… humanist? As my friend says, if frogs had wings, they wouldn’t bump their butts.

Humanism is based on the idea of the perfectibility of humans, where perfect is defined by, who else, the humanists. The understory is that humans can be without sin, and if all humans would just do that, then the earth would be inhabited by a race of gods. The humanists are the prophets and priests, of course. The belief in the perfectibility of humans is without any evidence to support it, and with thousands of years and billions of humans which disprove it; it is a belief held blindly, a fatuous religion with magical miracles and the longing for deity status.

The more well defined Humanisms do not eliminate “in groups” contrary to Speckhardt’s claim. Under Comte, humanism was to be run by brilliant scientist-philosophers as the combination priesthood and governing body over the masses. Under Nietzsche, the “herd” was to be formed into a single class under the ruling of those with the “will to power”. Under the “New Man” humanisms, from Lenin to Che, well, we know what happened there. The First “Humanist Manifesto” is explicit: institutions will be seized and morally reformed for equalization; the later manifestos become foggy quickly on the details, the plan. Humanism is attractive only to those who are history impaired.

To those who complain that “this new humanism is different from those others”, one need only to ask, “how are you going to cause this miraculous change in human nature to occur universally? What is your plan? Will it include Hell’s Angels and Chinese communists and Muslims (both Sunni and Shiite will become transformed into altruism for not only each other but for the Jews)? What about skinheads and politicians? Why do I doubt your ability to recruit Baptists, Catholics, Buddhists and Hindus? Why should I feel empathy for pedophiles? Your plan please!”

Perhaps the humanists will claim that we humans will evolve. To that we’ll ask, since when has evolution been declared directional, teleological, marching toward perfection with your preferred outcome in its sights? Why would humans as a group select to submerge their own needs in favor of others – biologically? What actual evidence (not Just So evo-devo stories like the fantasies in Speckhardt's statement above) can you present in your favor? It would truly take a miracle to get humans to randomly evolve away from their own self-interest. Or would this evolution be forced?

At best humanism is magical wishful thinking. At its worst, and we have seen it at its worst, it is deadly. Either humanists have entranced themselves with visions of their own perceived goodness, or they have not and are cynically involved for the inevitable takeover from within. Either way humanism is neither beneficial nor even benign. It is a social malignancy waiting to metastasize.

Breaking News: PZ Watch 08.13.11

PZ Meyers is the International Humanist of 2011. Such a paragon of Humanist tolerance and respect for the Other; a perfect example of Humanism, the Humanists are proud of PZ.

Humanism in Psychology Today

Dave Niose in Psychology Today:

”In my travels as president of the American Humanist Association, I am often asked to explain the difference between atheism and humanism. Since the question gets raised so frequently, I thought it might be a good idea to provide a short explanation here.

“To understand the difference between the terms atheism and humanism, realize first that the former refers to a view of only one specific issue (the existence of gods) whereas the latter is a broad philosophical outlook. From that premise, the rest falls into place easily.

“When Sally describes herself as an atheist, she is revealing only one fact about herself: she does not believe in any gods. Note that she is saying nothing about other supernatural beliefs, and she is saying nothing about her ethical/moral principles. Although atheists, being without any god-beliefs, usually do not accept other supernatural claims (such as belief in astrology, reincarnation, or life after death), technically Sally could believe in such notions and still wear the "atheist" label. Moreover, while some might be inclined to make certain presumptions about Sally's ethical principles upon learning that she identifies as an atheist, such presumptions, based on her atheist identity alone, are unwarranted. Because the atheist identity refers only to the singular issue of god-belief, it says nothing about her moral stature, good or bad.”

This is a valid admission, and by an Atheist:

” Because the atheist identity refers only to the singular issue of god-belief, it says nothing about her moral stature, good or bad”

Yes, and that is why people in general do not trust Atheists. There is no telling what their subjective moral antithesis to objective morals might be.

Where Niose fails first is in his declaration that the Atheist “does not believe in any gods”. This subterfuge ignores that the Atheist knows about the God hypothesis and overtly rejects it when developing his “god theory”, thereby actively rejecting God and actively believing that there is no God. The dodge is necessary in order to avoid having to defend their position that “there is no God”, which they cannot do, of course. They take their position without any defense for it.

Niose again:

” When Patty describes herself as a humanist, on the other hand, she tells us numerous things about herself. For one, she tells us that she approaches the world from a natural standpoint, meaning she rejects all supernatural beliefs, not just the singular issue of divinities. In seeking truth and knowledge, she accepts empiricism, science, and reason as her guides. Identifying as a humanist, Patty is declaring that she holds certain values, including a support for human rights, peace, democracy, and personal liberty with a sense of social responsibility. These principles are subject to some interpretation, of course, and humanism rejects outright the notion of dogma, but the general thrust of humanism is a progressive, forward-looking lifestance that encourages creativity, critical thinking, and personal fullfillment within the context of social well-being. The AHA sets forth a vision of humanism in its document Humanism and its Aspirations, which has been signed by 21 Nobel Laureates. The International Humanist and Ethical Union also has a short statement of humanist principles called The Amsterdam Declaration.”

First let’s dispose of the Appeal to Authority: It makes no difference how many Nobel Laureates support an assertion. What matters is whether there is a logically supportable argument in its favor, an argument that is grounded in First Principles.

Let’s look at the principles put forth here:

Human Rights.

Human Rights to what? To self determination? Or the human right to an equal outcome by confiscating the property of others in order to support my own happiness? Humanists do not support self-determination or self-interest as valid pursuits because that gets in the way of egalitarianism. Human Rights means equal outcomes (total Altruism) to a Humanist.

Peace.

Peace at any cost? War is evil, a premise acceptable to any rational being, is developed to mean that it is to be avoided, even if freedoms are sacrificed.

Democracy.

Democracy as a word is a beautiful thing, but as a practical concept it is not truly a feasible process leading toward egalitarianism. Without coercion humans are not likely to vote themselves into submission under a single worldview, especially not one that squelches personal interests. If a majority of parasites does take hold of the democracy, there would be rebellion of unknown type and proportion by those who are still individuals with independent minds that have not been conquered yet. Democracy under a parasitic majority won't stand for long, if not merely for economic distortions that lead to collapse.

Personal Liberty with a Sense of Social Responsibility.

And here’s the rub. Which takes precedence, personal liberty or social responsibility? Because with personal liberty, the desire to be left alone to develop personal responsibilities can also mean that others should also be left alone. Social responsibility comes after the maturation of the individual, and maybe not at all. In fact, for humanists the social responsibility is delegated to the government, which in turn is expected to delegate and enforce it upon the individual. Enforced social responsibility is the opposite of personal liberty. These concepts are mutually incompatible, when taken in the humanist extreme.

Like all things humanist, the soaring, high minded principles do not match reality in any realistic manner.

”...she approaches the world from a natural standpoint, meaning she rejects all supernatural beliefs, not just the singular issue of divinities. In seeking truth and knowledge, she accepts empiricism, science, and reason as her guides.

Humanism is embedded in the Fallacy of Materialism, and the Fallacy of Scientism. And because of those fallacies being used as axiomatic bases for their concept of reason, the humanist has no solid first principles upon which to anchor logic, so humanist reason floats around subjectively, unanchored. Therefore, reason is thought to be either critical attitudes (which they erroneously call critical thinking) or it is scientism, the flawed idea that empirical science can and will provide all knowledge. In fact it is not reason that establishes the primacy of the concept of Altrusim: it is emotion. Actual reason dictates against it.

Moreover, with only empiricism, science and reason as "her" guide, "she" will easily conclude that the Will To Power is the moral and only "reasonable" approach to managing humanity.

Humanism is utopianism. It has no chance for fruition, because humans cannot be perfected – observation should show that fact to even the most starry-eyed utopian. So this wondrous utopia cannot happen voluntarily. It must be installed involuntarily. That is the attraction of judicial activism, which can make laws from the bench, and establish punishments as well. It is a sure path to humanist management of humans; it is not democratic. Humanism is to be feared, and fought. But only if one values the right to think independently and use first principles as foundations for his logic.

Secular Morality Controls the Narrative

Not long ago, Obama removed the ability of health providers who object to certain procedures to be exempted form providing those procedures. At issue was the government’s power to force doctors and nurses to provide abortion, regardless of the consciences of those providers. In the past few weeks tens of thousands of signatures have been gathered on a document asking Obama to reverse that decision, and the document has been delivered to the president. Obama’s decision is one of many that seem to enable the power of the governing to force moral and/or economic decisions that are contrary to those made by individuals.

In Britain a similar battle is being waged, this one between the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) and the British Humanist Association. At issue are four cases, two of which are discrimination against the wearing of the cross at work, one of a counselor who declined to advise homosexuals, and one of a “registrar” who refused to marry homosexuals.

The EHRC claims that the British legal system is biased against Christians. The BHA claims that the EHRC is biased toward Christians.

”The BHA has an ongoing complaint lodged with the EHRC over recent comments by its chair Trevor Phillips in an interview with the Sunday Telegraph, that the EHRC’s ‘business is defending the believer’. The first response by the EHRC to the complaint and request for the remedy of an apology was that Mr Phillips ‘[stood] by’ his comments and no apology would be made. The BHA is appealing that decision.”

EHRC; BHA

Back in the USA, California Governor Jerry Brown has just signed into law a dictate that all school children be taught that homosexuals are good role models. Apparently, parents are not to be consulted or given notice.

”Sacramento --
“Public schools in California will be required to teach students about the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans starting Jan. 1 after Gov. Jerry Brown on Thursday signed a controversial bill to add the topic to the social sciences curriculum.

“Textbooks now must include information on the role of LGBT Americans, as well as Americans with disabilities, though California's budget crisis has delayed the purchasing of new books until at least 2015.

"History should be honest," Brown, a Democrat, said in a statement. "This bill revises existing laws that prohibit discrimination in education and ensures that the important contributions of Americans from all backgrounds and walks of life are included in our history books."

(…)

“Leno said the mandates apply broadly, though, telling reporters it would affect kindergarten through high school curriculum, "and, of course, in an age-appropriate way."

“Gay rights advocates said they will be vigilant about making sure schools across California comply.

“Carolyn Laub, the founder and executive director of the Gay-Straight Alliance Network, which works to establish gay-straight clubs in schools, said such clubs exist in 55 percent of California's high schools.

"We'll certainly be letting all of our constituents know about this bill, and when it goes into effect I can assure you there will be thousands of students" watching to see how it is implemented, she said.”

SFGate (San Francisco Chronicle)

And,

“Randy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com, a conservative family group, said under the new law parents will have no choice but to take their children out of public school and homeschool them to avoid what he said was "immoral indoctrination." The new law applies only to public schools, not private schools or families who homeschool.

"Jerry Brown has trampled the parental rights of the overwhelming majority of California fathers and mothers who don't want their children to be sexually brainwashed at school," Thomasson said. "This new law will prohibit textbooks and teachers from telling children the facts that homosexuality is neither healthy nor biological."

“The bill was supported by gay rights organizations including Equality California and the Gay-Straight Alliance Network. Teacher groups also said the bill would help students prepare for a diverse and evolving society.

"There is no room for discrimination of any kind in our classrooms, our communities or our state," said Dean Vogel, president of the California Teachers Association. “

ABC Channel 7, San Francisco

Traditional logic does discriminate, though: 0 is not 1; false is not true; bad is not good; abnormal is not normal. Under the new logic of total nondiscrimination, there is no non-valid worldview or personal predilection, except to claim that some worldviews or personal predilections are not valid: to say that would be discrimination, a hate crime, which is discrimination against certain speech. The internal contradiction and paradox is obvious.

Moreover, the schools do discriminate. They allow no non-secular teachings, which means that Humanism and Materialism are promoted and rigidly protected as the only acceptable worldviews in the government schools. That discrimination is A-OK with Humanist Homosexual Materialists, i.e. Secularists. Unfortunately, that is a basic internal contradiction to the entire Secular theory of education, rendering it irrational at best, immoral at worst.

Homeschooled students perform better in every classification of knowledge and ability: this is proven. Check the studies for yourself.

Humanists

The subject of Atheist Humanism is discussed in a fair amount of detail in the following books:

Vision of the Annointed: Self Congratulation as Social Policy; Thomas Sowell.

The Quest for Cosmic Justice; Thomas Sowell.

Intellectuals and society; Thomas Sowell.

The Liberal Mind; Lyle H. Rossiter Jr.

There is little question that Humanists are convinced of their higher intelligence and morality than the rest of the planet. Given this, why would they not feel empowered to change the rest of the planet to their higher plane? And given that plus their apparent gullibilty, why would they not align with terrorist-revolutionaries, a la Lenin and now Obama with respect to the hated Israel?

For those reasons, I will fight it to the end.

Humanism is Benign… Right?

Well, read what the manifestos actually say:

Humanist Manifesto I, 1933:

Statements of socialism and totalitarian control of society:

(…)

”ELEVENTH: Man will learn to face the crises of life in terms of his knowledge of their naturalness and probability. Reasonable and manly attitudes will be fostered by education and supported by custom. We assume that humanism will take the path of social and mental hygiene and discourage sentimental and unreal hopes and wishful thinking.

(…)

THIRTEENTH: Religious humanism maintains that all associations and institutions exist for the fulfillment of human life. The intelligent evaluation, transformation, control, and direction of such associations and institutions with a view to the enhancement of human life is the purpose and program of humanism. Certainly religious institutions, their ritualistic forms, ecclesiastical methods, and communal activities must be reconstituted as rapidly as experience allows, in order to function effectively in the modern world.

FOURTEENTH: The humanists are firmly convinced that existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that a radical change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted. A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible. The goal of humanism is a free and universal society in which people voluntarily and intelligently cooperate for the common good. Humanists demand a shared life in a shared world.

Humanist Manifesto II: The socialism of Manifesto I is now concealed in more dense hyperbole for the following reasons:

Preface
”It is forty years since Humanist Manifesto I (1933) appeared. Events since then make that earlier statement seem far too optimistic. Nazism has shown the depths of brutality of which humanity is capable. Other totalitarian regimes have suppressed human rights without ending poverty. Science has sometimes brought evil as well as good. Recent decades have shown that inhuman wars can be made in the name of peace. The beginnings of police states, even in democratic societies, widespread government espionage, and other abuses of power by military, political, and industrial elites, and the continuance of unyielding racism, all present a different and difficult social outlook. In various societies, the demands of women and minority groups for equal rights effectively challenge our generation.”

Well, the ideas of "siezing control of all institutions" and "social and mental hygiene" didn’t work out so well when the real world actually did it in the 1930's and 40's, so the Manifesto needed a little cosmetic work; hence Manifesto II.

Read the Manifestos if you haven’t already, all three of them. Read between the lines in the latter ones, for the abstruse and veiled references which were blatant in Manifesto I. For example, in Manifesto II:

”TENTH: Humane societies should evaluate economic systems not by rhetoric or ideology, but by whether or not they increase economic well-being for all individuals and groups, minimize poverty and hardship, increase the sum of human satisfaction, and enhance the quality of life. Hence the door is open to alternative economic systems. We need to democratize the economy and judge it by its responsiveness to human needs, testing results in terms of the common good.

Yes, economic well-being for all individuals and groups; the common good: democratize the economy and judge it by its responsiveness to human needs, testing results in terms of the common good.

The absurdness of a democratized economy should be apparent: the voting majority decides on what products everyone gets? In a free economy every real demand gets serviced. Which is better? More to the point, what does this TENTH article actually mean? One suspects that the democracy part actually refers to socialization and government ownership: the Peoples Economy. The references to seizure made clear in Manifesto I are now stealth references.

Then there is this in the ELEVENTH:

”We are concerned for the welfare of the aged, the infirm, the disadvantaged, and also for the outcasts - the mentally retarded, abandoned, or abused children, the handicapped, prisoners, and addicts - for all who are neglected or ignored by society.”

As if no one else cares about these people and only the elites care. Here’s the truth, at least in my community. The elites don’t care one whit about those categories of people. It is the religious community that runs programs and cares for them, performing outside the extremely limited governmental programs. These are ministries taken on by individuals who care, and they are not Atheo-Humanists. In fact, try to find an Atheo-Humanist organization actually on the ground at any disaster. [note 1]

And this one, the TWELFTH;

”TWELFTH: We deplore the division of humankind on nationalistic grounds. We have reached a turning point in human history where the best option is to transcend the limits of national sovereignty and to move toward the building of a world community in which all sectors of the human family can participate. Thus we look to the development of a system of world law and a world order based upon transnational federal government. This would appreciate cultural pluralism and diversity.”

This is one of the reasons for the next Manifesto, number III. Cultural pluralism is a fused disaster awaiting a spark. Witness the Islamic movement hoping to take over Europe and Britain merely by population size. Pluralism and diversity are not on the Islamic agenda.

FIFTEENTH:

(…)

It is the moral obligation of the developed nations to provide - through an international authority that safeguards human rights - massive technical, agricultural, medical, and economic assistance, including birth control techniques, to the developing portions of the globe. World poverty must cease. Hence extreme disproportions in wealth, income, and economic growth should be reduced on a worldwide basis.

SEVENTEENTH:

(…)

The world must be open to diverse political, ideological, and moral viewpoints and evolve a worldwide system of television and radio for information and education. We thus call for full international cooperation in culture, science, the arts, and technology across ideological borders. We must learn to live openly together or we shall perish together.

The Humanist Manifesto III is a wimpy shadow of the former Humanist positions, having replaced the dictates with “beliefs” and statements of morals according to Humanists. Here is the key phrasing:

Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness. Progressive cultures have worked to free humanity from the brutalities of mere survival and to reduce suffering, improve society, and develop global community. We seek to minimize the inequities of circumstance and ability, and we support a just distribution of nature's resources and the fruits of human effort so that as many as possible can enjoy a good life.

Yes, working not for oneself, for one’s own welfare, for one’s own family, but working for society. In return one gets his inequities reduced and a lot of stuff redistributed in his direction, unless he has too much stuff, then it is adios stuff. If this is not communism, then what is it?

Now let’s back up to this:

” Life's fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals. We aim for our fullest possible development and animate our lives with a deep sense of purpose, finding wonder and awe in the joys and beauties of human existence, its challenges and tragedies, and even in the inevitability and finality of death. Humanists rely on the rich heritage of human culture and the lifestance of Humanism to provide comfort in times of want and encouragement in times of plenty.”

Life’s fulfillment is for YOU GUYS to do all this stuff, while we reduce your inequities and redistribute your stuff. Read this paragraph again, and then kindly explain to me how this teleological revelation was received by the elites who are letting us in on their wisdom. We should service the humane ideals of “inequitiy reduction” and stuff “redistribution”, and then we will be fulfilled?

There is no categorical distance between the Humanist Manifestos I, II, and III. The only difference is that the original sharpness of focus has fogged somewhat, by excess verbiage in Manifesto II, and by over-simplicity and the use of joyous terms of liberationism objectives in Manifesto III.

The “Notable Signers” of Manifesto III include one (1) actual producer, a pharacologist; the remainder are academics, activists, writers, entertainers, and Unitarians. Except for that one (1) producer, not one produces a single product for satisfying the issue of ”whether or not they increase economic well-being for all individuals and groups, minimize poverty and hardship, increase the sum of human satisfaction, and enhance the quality of life.”

Humanism is the self-righteous elitist religion, to be applied to the common man: the herd. It originally even called itself the Humanist religion, and it has been declared a religion in the U.S. Federal Courts. It is the religion of self-righteous, arrogant, self-serving prototyrants.

[note 1]: One Atheist organization has recently tried to deliver stuff to disaster victims expressly because of this criticism - not because they actually care.

The Trouble With Truth

The Trouble With Truth: Freedom vs. Subservience

Freedom is the advantage of Atheism, while subservience is the plague of religion: that is the message from PZ Meyers last Sunday. The perfect freedom that Atheism provides is a release from authority and obligatory moral tenets. According to Meyers, the Atheist has,

”...no gods and no masters, only autonomous agents free to think and act”.

The Trouble With Truth: Rebellion

Many Atheists arrive at their Atheism during or after a journey of personal rebellion. Rebellion is part of the adolescent process of determining who one is. An adolescent is captured under rules of behavior that restrict. The restriction is resented. If the person is to be self-sufficient, then those rules made by others are onerous. Many youth rebel, and some rebel against all authority over them. In the manner of a prisoner rebelling against captors, the youth rebels, seeking personal control. In many cases, the youth is released from the restrictions as he reaches legal maturity, and he becomes independent and moves on, having accomplished personal control at last. In others, the resentment lingers, and rebellion continues. For some it continues throughout life. Some never reach the degree of personal control they seek.

So it is no wonder that the ultimate freedom and personal control that Atheism promises is popular amongst the young. And it is no wonder that it, rebellious Atheism, declines with age, along with Leftist, omni-control political leanings. But there remain those who cannot let go of the resentment they felt at the restrictions placed on them during their formative years, who retain the need for personal control over everything to the very end.

Another factor is the type of fathering that the youth received. In today’s distributed families, the fathers very often are not present. The youth are raised in an estrogen-rich environment, one which tries valiantly to provide the needs of the young person, but fails to provide a stable masculine role model. It is now known that male rebellion against the single female parent is a direct link to Atheism, and that faulty fathers produce the same issues in children, especially males.

When Meyers promises the great relief of omni-freedom and personal control via Atheism, he knows what he is doing. Freedom from all constraint is the main offering that Atheism has to bestow. Complete freedom is an attractive feature to a person who has been afflicted with onerous restrictions, real or imagined.

But freedom always comes at a price. Complete, unrestricted freedom costs dearly. It costs the connection to reality through truth, because for the Atheist there is no truth, it is all relative. Relativity gives one freedom to choose, whereas truth can restrict you to predetermined answers.

The Trouble With Truth: Definition

That’s the problem with truth. Or at least one of the problems. Truth has some characteristics that are uncomfortable for the rebel, the seeker of perfect freedom. Because truth, by definition, is uncompromising. Truth is incorrigible, unchangeable by the opinions of humans. Truth is not controllable by humans. Worse, logic and rational thought require that truth exists. And worst of all, truth might not be on the side of the rebel.

Humans are not the source of truth. The universe is not the source of truth. The source of the universe and humans is the source of truth. So controlling truth and bending it to an individual’s personal needs is out of the question for actual, universal truth. Any concepts that are manufactured for personal benefit are opinions, not truth. So it is opinion that is relative, not truth.

How should truth be defined then, in order to capture its incorrigible, universal quality? There are so many definitions of truth, that I have condensed them before;

Here is another condensation:

”Original Truth reflects observable characteristics of the universe that are inferred to be incorrigibly valid and perpetually unchanging within our universe, and which, if not so, would require a different sort of universe than ours in order to accommodate them.”

The Trouble With Truth: The Role of Inference.

Inference of truth is the only possible manner in which it can be apprehended. It is not possible to use empirical scientific methods to generate a truth, ever. This is because of the “inductive defect” and its spawn, the deductive defect, upon which empiricism depends. Truth is known only through the process of observation, inference and introspective examination. Before any objections about using inference for truth are raised, consider the widespread use of inference to declare the truth of the evolution hypothesis. Empirical science also infers a probability of the validity of an hypothesis after performing experiments that fail to falsify the hypothesis. Science is no stranger to inference: it uses it extensively.[1]

Inference of universal truth is different only in that the validity is inferred from the consequences that would be seen if the concept were not true, universally. It would take a much different universe to accommodate realities where a tautology was not valid, where cause and effect was not valid, or where an large, non-quantum object could both exist and not exist simultaneously. Our universe would not be what it is if these concepts were not true.

It is certainly valid to declare that these concepts cannot be proven, especially empirically. But it is not valid to declare them false because of that. Nietzsche did that and invented anti-Rationalism. But rationality remains a desirable characteristic amongst most humans today. In fact, rationality is an inborn human faculty that is well described in Locke’s “An Essay Concerning Human Understanding”. If a person denies rationality as a valuable trait, then a rational conversation cannot be had with him.

There are also arguments against introspection, declaring that mental activity such as that is subject to error. But this neglects the fact that all decisions are mental activities which are carried on in the individual mind, and which use the same Lockian human faculties that are exercised when analyzing empirical data. Moreover, introspective conclusions can be compared against those of others who have considered the same issues and have come to conclusions. Differences between individual findings can be considered evidence for consideration, just as is done in empiricism, comparing experimental results. The declaration that introspection and other mental considerations are faulty is a fallacy of failing to consider the full use, and consequences of full use, of the mental faculty and using only data favoring the desired conclusion (Exclusionary Fallacy). After all, Atheism is itself an inference which would automatically fail if introspection and mental agitations are not valid by definition.

The Trouble With Truth: Subservience.

Since it is demonstrable that truth does exist, and that it is incorrigible and its validity is not dependent upon what humans think about it, then it is necessary for human thought, if it is to be valid, to work within the framework of that truth.

I have been lucky enough to have observed and worked with some individuals who were independently brilliant. These individuals all exhibited a singular characteristic: intellectual humility. None of these people considered themselves to be “intellectuals”, especially “Public Intellectuals” endowed with the duty to moralize to the masses. What made them special was their willingness to look into physically abstruse matter with a totally open mind, a mentality that wished to know and understand rather than to control. By objectively exercising causes and observing all – All – the effects, or vice-versa, the truth of the phenomenon being examined could be found.

In other words, the observations were subject to the principle of cause and effect. The entire environment was allowed to be subservient to that principle. And the other First Principles as well, all were assumed as axioms. Valid thought can only happen under such subservience. Rebellion against these axioms produces the Nietzschean anti-rationality, which has no place in science, math, logic or rational discourse.

In fact, one can see that coherent information converges into knowledge, while incoherent information, i.e. noise, disperses into the chaos of more noise. Coherence is the First Principle of Non-Contradiction. Another way to say this is that denying Non-Contradiction produces chaotic thinking. So the total freedom that is the objective of Atheism and Materialism, the open thinking that denies absolutes, that claims control over its thoughts while denying external limits as arbitrary constructs, this total freedom brings only chaotic thinking.

Rebellion against absolutes and external control over the thought process is a faulty mind set, one which prevents the submission of thought to the reality of truth.

The Trouble With Truth: Reality.

Consider this. If there is no truth, then there is no reality, at least none that is stable and consistent. If there are no absolutes governing the universe, then the universe has no stable characteristics that we can call laws. And there is no consistency in an unstable reality that we can use to produce rational decisions, and thus rationality is non-existent.

Are we to believe this? Can this be inferred from any observations of the properties of the universe? Is language merely unintelligible mutterings without any logical meaning? Is there no personal experience with the reality that is described by the First Principles? Are there no absolute principles governing the behavior of the universe in a consistent and stable?

We can only infer answers to these issues. But if Atheism is valid, if there is no meaning to the principles of consistency, if total freedom of thought reigns, then all these things are so: and the consequence of that is another tenet of Atheism – we are meaningless, valueless, irrational creatures in an irrational, valueless, meaningless universe: so anything goes, anything whatsoever.

The Trouble With Truth: Ethics

Which brings us to ethics and truth. The most common ethic of Atheists is Consequentialism which is focused on the masses as Humanism. Here Atheists are forced to consider whether Consequentialism is “truth”, or whether it is merely a tactic.

It almost seems that I needn’t say any more about that, yet I am compelled to point out that ethics are never “truth” for Atheists, who deny that truth exists. So the default is “tactic”. They do claim loud and long that they are moral, Meyers does so frequently. But that resolves to “tactic” as well, since it cannot be truth either. And tactics are what Consequentialism is all about. It is no different than the procedures for carrying on warfare; once again, anything goes, if it produces results.

The Trouble With Truth: Not-Truth

The final yet universal problem for Atheists is that truth, when denied, produces an environment of not-truth. Without truth, only not-truth remains. That is the environment of Atheism: not-truth. In such an environment, as was pointed out earlier, anything goes, including all sorts of denials of the obvious. Atheism cannot be true for several reasons, in this case, the fact that it denies the existence of any arbitrary, uncontrollable, external, incorrigible, absolute… truth.

So it cannot be true.

[1] Note that science does not warrant inferred results to be truth: science, including empirical science, produces only contingent factoids, tentative information that is always subject to further investigation and findings.

A Humanist Manifesto for the Honest Intellect

Whereas the previous three Humanist Manifestos became increasingly obscure and obtuse, with obeisance to the times in which they were written;

Whereas the previous three Humanist Manifestos became increasingly less intellectually honest in presenting a necessary and moral program for the Benefit For All Mankind;

Whereas the previous three Humanist Manifestos became increasingly less pointed and direct in dealing with the place of the individual human within the Whole Of Mankind;

A Fourth Humanist Manifesto Composed For the Benefit Of All Mankind is herewith presented, in order to clarify previous obscurities:

1. There is no God, nor deity of any description.

2. The physical universe is the totality of existence.

3. The physical universe is hung on a scaffold of space and time, and every instant of time finds a new universe with every particle and every field having changed from the previous instant; therefore there is no absolute constant in the universe, specifically no absolute Truth [1].

Man is a derivative of the physical universe. It follows that man’s faculties are also physical derivatives. Clarity of thought requires rejecting the ephemeral mental constructs such as self, consciousness, conscience, personal agency, all of which are illusions or delusions.

4. Conscience, especially, is a fleeting mental process of “seeming”, the same type of false construct as self, intentionality, etc; Seeming is not the same as being, it is a construct which exists only for the current instant and it is an illusion, not a physical reality. Therefore the derivative of conscience – morality – is also an illusion, not a physical reality.

There are, then, no morals other than those described herein, which are derived from rational objectives for the Benefit of Mankind, those being derived by the higher intellects of humanity: we Humanists. The Benefit of All Mankind is too important to leave to lesser intellects which are hampered by conscience and moral constructs that describe and prescribe only personal behaviors and personal responsibilities, while ignoring prescriptions for Mankind As A Whole.

5. Any rationalized morality must be first associated with objectives for All Mankind; only then can the moral paradigm be retrofit with actions necessary to accomplish the objectives. Any and all actions that produce positive progress toward objectives for All Mankind are tautologically moral; there are no other morals. It is thus immoral to ignore any action that could produce positive progress toward objectives for All Mankind.

6. Humans are derived from an ancestor lower than the chimpanzee; Most mental functioning of humans remains hunter-gatherer in nature. Few humans have the intellectual capability to realize the truth of Humanism. For this reason, Humanists are bound by the duty to manage the affairs of humanity as a whole, for the benefit of Mankind As A Whole.

7. It follows that every human must focus only on humanity as a whole. No human should focus on self, because self is not only an illusion, self-focus is a deviant behavior that neglects Mankind As A Whole, and is therefore amoral, if not immoral. Therefore all human institutions that focus on self, conscience, etc. must be abandoned or ceded to Humanist control, and then replaced with institutions that focus on Humanity As A Whole, starting with focusing on certain special demographic segments, including Humanists and their supporters (typically legal groupings of designated victims), which must be given higher priority than the whole.

8. The above objectives, being favorable to Mankind As A Whole, must be accomplished by the pragmatics of using any techniques which are functionally successful; not using any technique that might produce success is not moral.

9. The implementation of these techniques will produce a New Man, one that is focused no longer on selfish wants, one that is focused only on All Of Mankind, at the personal cost of self-sacrifice, even to the point of starvation and death, as this is the highest calling possible for individual human units. The New Man will evolve from the best of the best of humans: the Humanists. The New Man will very likely evolve away from the remaining mass of humans, and replace humans as the superior species on the planet. Humans should be prepared for this eventuality and gradually habituated to their new subordinate role. The resulting population of humans will likely need adjusting for balance and size, including the control of subpopulations, according to the needs of Mankind as a Whole.

10. We Atheist Humanists agree that it is our responsibility as public intellectuals and morally enlightened, elite, intelligentsia to oversee the accomplishment of these objectives for the Benefit Of All Mankind. We shall work diligently to collapse the current institutions using whatever techniques are available, including working from within to weaken the ability of the institutions to perform their stated functions, and in the ensuing cultural and economic chaos of institutional collapse we shall prevail with the creation of proper institutions for the control of all social and economic factors for the direct BENEFIT OF ALL MANKIND.

[1] For perfect clarity, this particular statement is, in fact, absolutely True, however.

Can An Atheist Be “Good”?

Atheists are now advertising on buses and billboards how ethical they are and how “Good” they are. This always brings this question straight to my mind: ethical and good by what standard?

Most Atheists, when asked, will claim to have thought through all the intricacies of human behavior, and then come up with a humanist variant of behavior for themselves. This sounds very logical. But it is not humanism that they actually pattern their behavior against (and that is well and good). What they actually do is to co-opt the Judeo-Christian ethic for their behavior, because that is the dominant ethic and legal structure of the culture in which we live… so far.

Atheists, when they reject the deity upon which the cultural ethic is based, also reject the ethic, de facto, since the ethic was decreed by that deity and is not based on evolved pragmatics, it is based solely on the opinion of the deity. On the other hand, they can claim to be “Good” according to Judeo-Christian standards merely because they are law-abiding out of convenience. One need not believe in the ethic behind a law in order to abide by the law; it is merely cheaper in time and money to obey the law. Most people are law abiding because it is possible to lead productive, fulfilling lives without the hassle of fines or jail time just by observing the behavioral limits that are set legally.

The term Good for Atheism is a term without meaning. Although some Atheists might deny it, Nietzsche settled the issue logically nearly a century and a half ago. And most Atheists do agree with Nietzsche that there is no such thing as an absolute, much less Truth. So if there is no absolute, then “Good” must not be absolute; it is relative.

Therefore, within this simple framework of their own creation, no Atheist can be “Good”, unless it - Good - is relative.

And it follows of course, that being relative, any action an Atheist takes is “Good” by the definition of that Atheist, a convenient tautology that is generally left out of the conversation regarding just how Good Atheists really are. They are Good by definition, law-abiding by convenience, intellectually dishonest by virtue of logical failure.

If an Atheist claims to be Good according to a Judeo-Christian standard, as opposed to Consequentialism or it’s subset, Humanism, the first legitimate question for him is, “how do you justify using this set of behaviors as your ethic?” In fact, the deception of claiming to be “Good” even though not believing in Good or Evil as absolutes is an exercise in Consequentialist relativity; and by having performed in this manner the Atheist no doubt does “feel” Good, even while denying the existence of Good.

Consequentialism is not an ethic, it is a political strategy. Its most recent adherents are the Leftist politicians in power in the USA at the moment; Its most infamous recent advocate was Saul Alinsky. But Consequentialism also was the operating procedure for the horrific Humanist “new man” political experiments and bloodbaths of the 20th century. Regardless of the claims of being “Good”, Atheism has a history of amorality that is a bloody “Will to Power”, not a Judeo-Christian ethic of submission to a moral law that is outside of human construction and manipulation.

It is the relative manipulation of its ethics and logic to which Atheism is prone that makes Atheism a moral and intellectual hazard.

The Coalition of Reason: tautology or thieves of morality?

The Coalition of Reason (COR) is another humanist-type group, one that is being activist in the sense of promoting Atheism via billboards declaring that they are Good Without God, which is also the title of a book which they promote.

One might be tempted to think that a group declaring itself to be attached to “Reason” might at least describe what reason means to them. And certainly one would expect an outline of the rational process behind their beliefs. However, a quick trip through the COR website produces nothing of the sort. COR is attached to reason merely because they say so – a ploy of virtually all Atheist organizations and Atheist promoters. Reason means Atheism. There is no rational process involved. The term “Reason” is merely co-opted to provide the aura of rational respectability they need to shroud their faith.

Let’s examine their main tenet of faith: they are self-declared “Good Without God”, and they proclaim it to be so on billboards. The without God part is uncontested; they are definitely without God. But what about “good”?

“Goodness” is a relative term, in that it demands reference to a measurement baseline, a standard to be used for comparison. Deviate in one direction from that baseline, and “badness” occurs. Deviate in the other direction from that baseline, and "goodness" occurs.

What does the COR designate as its baseline? It does not designate anything. So taken at this level, the claim to be good, which is based on no foundation or baseline definition of goodness or badness, this claim of “goodness” is a tautology. This is because goodness is designated by their unstated, personal definition, with which they obviously consider themselves to have conformed. More importantly, this unstated standard or baseline could always be evolved to match their current behavior: hence, they are good merely due to their own definition, a permanent tautology, one they cannot fail.

But at the next level, perhaps they have co-opted (stolen) an ethic from the culture they inhabit – Judeo-Christianity. If this is the case, then they have dishonestly compared themselves to a standard which they openly reject, that of religious ethics, the authority of which is derived through revelation. This process makes them not good compared to the standard they are using, in the sense that they are deceiving, possibly themselves, and certainly attempting to deceive the public. That is “Not Good”, rather than the “Good” which they project.

However, after the actual rational analysis of their claim is done, it is obvious that the Coalition of Reason is not interested in logic, reason or rational thought. Nor is it really interested in Goodness. It is really interested in the standard Atheist elitist pursuits couched in humanism, Freethought and so on.

So the COR is engaged in fraud from the get-go, which indicates that its baseline for “goodness” is a slippery thing that conforms to objectives, not to absolutes such as incorrigible truths.

Acknowledging Evidence by Type, Value and Relevance

Philosophy has always been concerned with evidence. Physics was originally known as "physical philosophy", until it removed itself under the empirical aegis, leaving philosophy with more non-material issues to resolve. Even so, philosophy remains concerned with evidence. And much of modern philosophy is Materialist anyway, so is hardly distinguishable from empiricism. So the issue of the validity of the evidence being used to support a philosophy (and associated worldviews) is of the highest importance, philosophically.

The types of evidence and their use is of major concern to anyone who is concerned with the accuracy and validity of his worldview. So it is important to understand and acknowledge the different major types of evidence available. Here I will discuss just the material evidence types and ignore the possibility of non-material evidence for the moment. The question will be asked, “How well founded is Philosophical Materialism, in its claim to be based on the fact of Material evidence?”

For this discussion there are three types of Material evidence to be considered:

Type:
1. Speculated/inferred from instances of empirical findings; not falsifiable;
2. Empirical, based on repeated experimental findings; falsifiable;
3. Witness testimony to experiential instances.

The Material evidence must be given a value. This is generally done probabilistically”

Value:
Likelihood or probability; factuality of the assumptions of probability calculations.

And it is necessary to determine, somehow, whether the evidence applies to the questions at hand:

Relevance:
1. The application to the fundamentals of the search for facts.
2. The application to the fundamentals of the search for truth.
3. The application to the fundamentals of the search for a valid worldview.

Now, the question: “How well founded is Philosophical Materialism, in its claim to be based on the truth of Material evidence?”

Philosophical Materialism is largely based on two "axiomatic" premises, (a) denial of non-material reality based on lack of material evidence (self-refuting) and (b) evolution.

If we ask how evolution fits into the above constraints, we immediately find that it is of Type 1, only: Speculated/inferred from instances of empirical findings; not falsifiable (the proverbial pre-Cambrian rabbit is not a falsifier, it is a theory adjuster).

The likelihood probability calculation is not based on any real numerical values, except the number of inferences being taken. Actual probability calculations that are performed on the known instances of mutations are rejected by Materialists, who increasingly assert Selection Only, without mutation. The conclusion is that the actual probability is either logically zero or is factually unknown.

The relevance factor is that evolution is irrelevant as a search for facts; it has never been the instrument of causing a major breakthrough in biology; it is always retrofit. Evolution can never be an incorrigible truth, because science never produces those. Science produces contingent factoids, not truth. Because of its limited capabilities, science is too weak to provide a truth value that is not actually a contingent factoid; in reality, truth must be sought and found outside of science. For this reason, Philosophical Materialists reject the concept of truth, and therefore are relativistic, only. And this is the logical death of Philosophical Materialism: if there is no truth, then Philosophical Materialism cannot be true. This is on top of the irrational assertion that no non-material reality is found within the material realm, therefore it does not exist.

Regardless of the inferential evidence that piles up in mountainous piles of speculation, evolution is not now and can never be a rational force for any worldview, certainly not one that self-refutes on command.

Atheism Targets UK Schools: Telegraph

British Atheists are organizing to battle for the minds of school children. With the support of professors A.C.Grayling and Richard Dawkins, the "National Federation of Atheist, Humanist and Secular Student Societies (AHS) plans to launch a recruitment drive this summer", according to the Telegraph.

The AHS website counters by listing its objectives and disputes the Telegraph's claims that,

"The federation aims to encourage students to lobby their schools and local authorities over what is taught in RE lessons and to call for daily acts of collective worship to be scrapped. It wants the societies to hold talks and educational events to persuade students not to believe in God."

In its rebuttal the AHS site makes the following claims for its own intents, and charges the Telegraph with Lying for Jesus:

"* To teach students how to debate and create dialogue between school faith groups.

* Provide the school with fun and educational events and activities, including two student-led courses: ‘Perspectives’ in which a speaker from a faith group gives a talk followed by Q&A, and our ‘One Life’ course, which considers moral and ethical issues without god. Many events will also support the scientific curriculum.

* Encourage charity volunteering.

* Give students the experience of running a group and managing events.

* Show students that it’s ok not to believe in god and encourage critical thinking.

* Bring out issues concerning religious privilege in schools such as collective worship and incomplete or biased religious education"

Now it appears to me that the AHS has just confirmed the charges made by the Telegraph. The code words are obvious: religious privilege; incomplete or biased. And there can be little doubt as to the actual Dawkins-inspired content and methodology in such "fun" activities as "consider[ing]moral and ethical issues without god", and "show[ing] students that it’s ok not to believe in god and encourage critical thinking".

"Critical thinking" is code for Philosphical Materialist dogma, as is "promoting science". Dawkins is especially fond of the term, critical thinking, while not showing any propensity for demonstrating its use. Dawkins is an evangelist for Materialism and Humanism; critical thought is not his agenda at all, or he would teach it - but he hardly seems to comprehend it, much less use it.

I once scanned Dawkins site for "critical thinking" and for "first principles". There were dozens of hits, all of which proclaimed the need for critical thinking, none of which displayed any knowledge of what it is beyond spouting Materialism. And there were no hits on "first principles" save one that claimed to have created one.

There seems to be nothing that is too absurd to be believed by those who worship thought and the supremency of their own minds, at the expense of the humble use of the principles behind thought and rationality. For them, truth is decreed not discovered.

I'm not certain as to what kind or how much religious education actually occurs in British schools; that is not the point here. The point is the deception being practiced by the National Federation of Atheist, Humanist and Secular Student Societies.

Ethic By Decree

In rescinding the Federal restrictions on Embryonic stem cell research, Obama realized that there is another fundamental requirement: a new ethic is required also. George W. Bush had actually left the door open for this by compromising the original ethic of life, that from "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

Bush allowed certain embryos to be killed, even while celebrating the "snowflake children" who had been born and were originally among those frozen embryos. This ethic of relativism allowed a somewhat financially restricted pursuit of Embryonic stem cell killing and exploitation.

Obama, through an Executive Order, has directed the NIH to rewrite the ethic statement concerning Embryonic stem cell exploitation. His statement reflects this: ideology must not interfere with science. Obama's idea of morality is that it is flexible ideology that must be bent to fit around science and scientism. The consequentialism is unmistakable: science justifies anything; just change the ethical statement to match.

What does it say about a nation when its basic ethic of life can be nullified by a "new ethic" created by a pen stroke? The idea of "new ethics" is symptomatic of a Federal Adminstration by relativist, consequentialist, Atheist elitists who feel empowered with self-endowed personal authority to eliminate previous ethics and morality in favor of their own opinions, which they decree to be: the new ethic.

What could possibly be more disturbing?