Category Archives: Philosophy

Ideas, epistemology, theories of human conduct

Subhan Allah


The words ‘Subhan Allah’ mean ‘Glory to God’in in Arabic.

Why would Christians object to ‘Glory to God’ slogans? Isn’t that part of the Christian thing ?

Do Christians think there are two invisible chaps in the sky called Allah and God or just one supernatural being called all sorts of things?  Click here for 2808 forgotten gods.
Perhaps they object to Arabic, how about gloire à Dieu or gloria a Dios.

All religion is nothing more than someone’s opinion supported solely by a belief that their particular invisible guy agrees with them.

I doubt that London transport would object to a Christian slogan any more than they objected to an accurate statistical statement also shown in the accompanying image.

London Transport’s advertising policy is entirely mercenary, if you pay for the space you get to say what you want.
If you want to say ‘My god has 10% more truth than your god’ you can. There is no requirement for truth on buses any more than in any other advertising media.

One final point.
The church once tried to ban the Life of Bryan and like the book said “as ye sow, so shall ye reap”, or to put it another way: “Screw you too”.

Roosevelt say what?


How curious that a right wing plea for truth is based on something that is itself tantamount to a lie.

There is no evidence that Theodore Roosevelt (1858-1919) ever said “To anger a conservative, lie to him: to anger a liberal, tell him the truth”. In fact, the quotation has appeared in print only since about 2007 which is of course long after Roosevelt.

Even more curious that they chose to attribute this  false quote to Roosevelt. As a leader of the Republican Party, Roosevelt was the driving force for the Progressive Era in US politics in the early 20th century.

Theodore Roosevelt championed his “Square Deal” domestic policies, promising the average citizen fairness, breaking of trusts, regulation of railroads, and pure food and drugs.

Roosevelt made conservation a top priority, he established a myriad of new national parks, forests, and monuments intended to preserve the nation’s natural resources.

You might call him the original RINO.

Big Fat Idiot


“Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot”: that is not only a factually correct statement but the title of a book written by  Al Franken in 1996.

Australians may not be familiar with Limbaugh so just think of Alan Jones on steroids with a bad headache after overdosing on nastyness. You can listen to Limbaugh on his podcast but be sure you have plenty of soap and hot water available before listening.

In the 20 years since its publication, Rush limbaugh has been busy proving the aptness of the book’s title.

He made a complete ass of himself last Tueday while explaining that if evolution were real, Harambe, the gorilla that was shot and killed at Cincinnati Zoo  after a young boy fell into its enclosure, would have become “one of us.”

He said: “A lot of people think that all of us used to be apes. Don’t doubt me on this. A lot of people think that all of us used to be gorillas, and they’re looking for the missing link out there. The evolution crowd. They think we were originally apes… If we were the original apes, then how come Harambe is still an ape, and how come he didn’t become one of us?” Click here to hear him actually say this.

There is not an evolutionary biologist on the planet who thinks mankind is descended from apes. We do however share a common ancestry with chimpanzees from about  six million years ago, we are not descended from chimpanzees, we are their cousins. Gorillas are more distantly related, gorillas share a common ancestry with us and with chimpanzees. We belong to the group often referred to a “African apes” comprising gorillas, humans,  bonobos and chimpanzees. Click here for an actual evolutionary biologist.

So there you have it Mr Limbaugh: we are not descended from apes, we are apes you big fat idiot.

Biblical Climatology


Republican congressman John Shimkus denied that climate change was happening because it says so in the bible, he said that “we shouldn’t [be] concerned about the planet being destroyed because God promised Noah it wouldn’t happen again after the great flood”.

Televangelists David Barton and Kenneth Copeland disagree because God told them that climate change is happening and it is God’s punishment for our sins. “…the nation immediately falls under the judgment of God as He removes his protection and “whap, here comes storms like we’ve never seen before and here comes floods and here comes climate stuff that we can’t explain; all of the hot times and all the cold times and not enough rain and too much rain and we’re flooding over here and we’ve got droughts over here …”

American’s do not have a lock on thinking that sin influences weather and climate. Senior Church of England bishops have claimed that floods that have devastated swathes of the country [England] are God’s judgment on the immorality and greed of modern society . [Click here for report]

One diocesan bishop has even claimed that laws that have undermined marriage, including the introduction of pro-gay legislation, have provoked God to act by sending the storms that have left thousands of people homeless.

Nor is this linkage exclusively Christian. Seyyed Youssef Tabatabi-nejad, a senior Islamic cleric in Isfahan, Iran, has claimed that women dressing inappropriately is causing climate change. [Click here for report]

Fortunately most religious organizations  agree with the science and promote the view that climate change is real and we are the cause. A more rational view is taken by Katharine Hayhoe, a climate scientist and evangelical Christian.  Here: she explains what’s wrong about religious right. Muslims too are mostly on the side of science as far as climate change is concerned. [Click here for report]

[Click here] for an overview of the Climate change /Global warming controversy including references to the views of all sides.

[Click here] for an overview of Climate change denial

[Click here] and [Click here] for answers to arguments against the reality of Climate change and its causes.

Warning many of the references in these sites contain actual scientific data.

Bible Fairy Tales


I used to file the bible in the fiction section of our school library, I did this so often that I was finally caught in the act by our overtly Christian librarian who sent me to see the headmaster.

Expecting dire punishment, I was pleasantly surprised to find that the dreaded headmaster, Mr Adrian Bristow M.A.(Cantab), could barely conceal his amusement and sentenced me to a light Simpsonion punishment of writing out 100 times “I must not interfere with the library filing system”.

I wish that I had been witty enough to have thought of this most appropriate of editorial efforts.


I had an  interesting Facebook conversation recently.  It started with a CHINO (Christian in name only)  friend of mine who posted a Nordic looking image of Jesus overwritten with the following text: A lunatic liberal writing for The Huffington Post this week claimed that the Christian savior Jesus Christ was the first-ever transgender man.

My Chino friend added his own comment:
Just when you thought the whole transgender issue couldn’t get any more insane, HuffPo goes and publishes this about Jesus Christ!
This has to be an all time low.

I responded with tongue in cheek agreement:
You are right: who but a complete lunatic would claim characteristics for someone who probably never existed in the first place?

Perhaps you are not familiar with all of the continuing discoveries that are being made proving just how much of the Bible is true. Currently, King Solomon’s wall is being excavated. Noah’s Ark along with geological evidence of the flood, the presence of Sodom and Gomorrah. Eric, I fought for your right to believe as you wish, but don’t ask me to go through life with no faith in a supreme God. I also have a right to my own beliefs. If you don’t enjoy my post, don’t read them.

I responded to each point:

King Solomon’s wall:
The so called “King Solomon’s wall” may or may not have been built by Solomon but it is neither here nor there since I did not cast doubt on the historicity of Solomon.

Noah’s Ark:
I am not aware of any evidence for the existance of any vessel capable of carrying two of each kind of animal. Nor have I heard any plausible explanation of where Noah might have obtained his pairs of kangaroos, polar bears, penguins etc etc.

Geological evidence of the flood:
there was a giant flood affecting the area around the Black Sea 7000 years ago (5000 BCE), but that doesn’t make the flood “Biblical.” and it certainly wasn’t global. Perhaps you could cite a reference for evidence of a global flood. Not the Grand Canyon please.

Sodom and Gomorrah:
The Biblical cities of Sodom and Gomorrah may have existed but no verified sites for the cities have been found. If verifiable sites were found tomorrow that would prove nothing about Jesus.

The existence of ancient Israel is not in doubt. I have walked the streets of Jericho and explored the caves of qumran. I have touched the wall of Solomon’s temple with my own hands. I have been to Bethlehem. I have been to the town of Caesarea built by Herod the Great around 25 BC and I have even walked the Via Dolorosa (the way of suffering). None of this has any bearing on the historicity or otherwise, of Jesus.

Fighting for My Freedom:
My freedoms rest on centuries of sacrifice by many people who fought and even gave their lives for my right to speak and write as I wish and to them I am grateful but I don’t think you are old enough to have fought in any war having a bearing on my freedom.

Freedom of Speech:
You absolutely have the right to your own beliefs and you have the right to express them. I have no need to ask you to go through life without a supreme God because, in my opinion, you are already doing it. If you believe otherwise that is just your opinion too. All religious beliefs are just opinions with nothing more to support them than the belief in a God who coincidentally holds the same opinions as you do.

Thomas Hobbes

Importance in American Government

by Kevin Wandrei, Demand Media

American government is a product of numerous Enlightenment thinkers, who thrived in the late 17th and early 18th centuries. These include the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes. While some of Hobbes’ ideas were contrary to American governing principles — like his belief in absolute power over a government’s subjects — many were perfectly consistent with the ideas presented in the country’s founding documents. While many of his ideas on social contracts, equality and natural liberties inspired the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, others were not truly integrated into the U.S. philosophy of government until after the Civil War.

Social Compact

When John Hobbes imagined what life would be like without government, he concluded it would be “nasty, brutish, and short.” He envisioned individuals constantly vying with each other for their own self-interest and attacking others in pursuit of those interests. From this pessimistic view comes a foundation of American government rooted in Hobbes: the social compact. Hobbes believed that to enforce law and prevent the chaos of the state of nature, people consented to forming a government. This idea is written into the preamble of the U.S. Constitution, when “We the People” establish a government to do things like “ensure domestic tranquility” and “promote the general welfare.”

Inalienable Rights

When the Declaration of Independence was written, it specified that “all men are created equal, and endowed… with certain unalienable rights.” While this idea also comes from the philosopher John Locke, Thomas Hobbes contributed significantly to the idea of natural liberties as well. Significantly, Hobbes believed that all subjects of a government had the right to defend themselves against, and even overthrow, a government that no longer supported them. This, of course, is the foundational idea behind the Declaration of Independence and the establishment of the United States. Furthermore, the Second Amendment to the Constitution, which states that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, supports a Hobbesian view on self-defense.

Equality of All Men

Hobbes’ governmentless world did have one advantage: All people were inherently equal. In fact, their equality of capability was partly what made life so terrible, because no single person was ever able to rise above anyone else. Hobbes thought equality needed to be protected, and U.S. government has evolved to more firmly embrace the concept of equality. After the Civil War, the adoption of the 14th Amendment, for example, forbade any jurisdiction from denying a person equality before the law. Before that, the Declaration of Independence, which stated that all men are created equal, provided only a conceptual foundation for equality in government.

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

Hobbes believed that the tendency towards self-preservation was a natural instinct and should be a cornerstone of governing principles. In American government, the principle was first stated in the Declaration of Independence as the fact that all men are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. While this statement also has Lockean influence, the mention of “life” is particularly Hobbesian, because Hobbes thought preserving one’s own life was sacrosanct. In the U.S. Constitution, the post-Civil War 14th Amendment explicitly forbids any state from depriving a person of life, liberty or property without due process of law. This enshrined Hobbesian ideas into U.S. government.

A Refutation of Deism

A Refutation of Deism

Percy Bysshe Shelley (1814)

This extract from A Refutation of Deism is part of a dialogue between the characters Theosophus and Eusebes. Here is Eusebes speaking about creationism.

Design must be proved before a designer can be inferred. The matter in controversy is the existence of design in the Universe, and it is not permitted to assume the contested premises and thence infer the matter in dispute. Insidiously to employ the words contrivance, design, and adaptation before these circumstances are made apparent in the Universe, thence justly inferring a contriver, is a popular sophism against which it behoves us to be watchful.

To assert that motion is an attribute of mind, that matter is inert, that every combination is the result of intelligence is also an assumption of the matter in dispute.

Why do we admit design in any machine of human contrivance? Simply because innumerable instances of machines having been contrived by human art are present to our mind, because we are acquainted with persons who could construct such machines; but if, having no previous knowledge of any artificial contrivance, we had accidentally found a watch upon the ground, we should have been justified in concluding

that it was a thing of Nature, that it was a combination of matter with whose cause we were unacquainted, and that any attempt to account for the origin of its existence would be equally presumptuous and unsatisfactory.

The analogy which you attempt to establish between the contrivances of human art, and the various existences of the Universe, is inadmissible. We attribute these effects to human intelligence, because we know beforehand that human intelligence is capable of producing them. Take away this knowledge, and the grounds of our reasoning will be destroyed. Our entire ignorance, therefore, of the Divine Nature leaves this analogy defective in its most essential point of comparison.

What consideration remains to be urged in support of the creation of the Universe by a supreme Being? Its admirable fitness for the production of certain effects, that wonderful consent of all its parts, that universal harmony by whose changeless laws innumerable systems of worlds perform their stated revolutions, and the blood is driven through the veins of the minutest animalcule that sports in the corruption of an insect’s lymph: on this account did the Universe require an intelligent Creator, because it exists producing invariable effects, and inasmuch as it is admirably organised for the production of these effects, so the more did it require a creative intelligence.

Thus have we arrived at the substance of your assertion, “That whatever exists, producing certain effects, stands in need of a Creator, and the more conspicuous is its fitness for the production of these effects, the more certain will be our conclusion that it would not have existed from eternity, but must have derived its origin from an intelligent creator.”

In what respect then do these arguments apply to the Universe, and not apply to God? From the fitness of the Universe to its end you infer the necessity of an intelligent Creator. But if the fitness of the Universe, to produce certain effects, be thus conspicuous and evident, how much more exquisite fitness to his end must exist in the Author of this Universe? If we find great difficulty from its admirable arrangement in conceiving that the Universe has existed from all eternity, and to resolve this difficulty suppose a Creator, how much more clearly must we perceive the necessity of this very Creator’s creation whose perfections comprehend an arrangement far more accurate and just.

The belief of an infinity of creative and created Gods, each more eminently requiring an intelligent author of his being than the foregoing, is a direct consequence of the premises which you have stated. The assumption that the Universe is a design, leads to a conclusion that there are [an] infinity of creative and created Gods, which is absurd. It is impossible indeed to prescribe limits to learned error, when Philosophy relinquishes experience and feeling for speculation.

Until it is clearly proved that the Universe was created, we may reasonably suppose that it has endured from all eternity. In a case where two propositions are diametrically opposite, the mind believes that which is less incomprehensible: it is easier to suppose that the Universe has existed from all eternity, than to conceive an eternal being capable of creating it. If the mind sinks beneath the weight of one, is it an alleviation to increase the intolerability of the burthen?

A man knows, not only that he now is, but that there was a time when he did not exist; consequently there must have been a cause. But we can only infer, from effects, causes exactly adequate to those effects. There certainly is a generative power which is effected by particular instruments; we cannot prove that it is inherent in these instruments, nor is the contrary hypothesis capable of demonstration. We admit that the generative power is incomprehensible, but to suppose that the same effects are produced by an eternal Omnipotent and Omniscient Being, leaves the cause in the same obscurity, but renders it more incomprehensible.

We can only infer from effects causes exactly adequate to those effects. An infinite number of effects demand an infinite number of causes, nor is the philosopher justified in supposing a greater connexion or unity in the latter, than is perceptible in the former. The same energy cannot be at once the cause of the serpent and the sheep; of the blight by which the harvest is destroyed, and the sunshine by which it is matured; of the ferocious propensities by which man becomes a victim to himself, and of the accurate judgment by which his institutions are improved. The spirit of our accurate and exact philosophy is outraged by conclusions which contradict each other so glaringly.

The greatest, equally with the smallest motions of the Universe, are subjected to the rigid necessity of inevitable laws. These laws are the unknown causes of the known effects perceivable in the Universe. Their effects are the boundaries of our knowledge, their names the expressions of our ignorance. To suppose some existence beyond, or above them, is to invent a second and superfluous hypothesis to account for what has already been accounted for by the laws of motion and the properties of matter. I admit that the nature of these laws is incomprehensible, but the hypothesis of a Deity adds a gratuitous difficulty, which so far from alleviating those which it is adduced to explain, requires new hypothesis for the elucidation of its own inherent contradictions.

The laws of attraction and repulsion, desire and aversion, suffice to account for every phenomenon of the moral and physical world. A precise knowledge of the properties of any object, is alone requisite to determine its manner of action. Let the mathematician be acquainted with the weight and volume of a cannon ball, together with the degree of velocity and inclination with which it is impelled, and he will accurately delineate the course it must describe, and determine the force with which it will strike an object at a given distance. Let the influencing motive, present to the mind of any person be given, and the knowledge of his consequent conduct will result. Let the bulk and velocity of a comet be discovered, and the astronomer, by the accurate estimation of the equal and contrary actions of the centripetal and centrifugal forces, will justly predict the period of its return.

The anomalous motions of the heavenly bodies, their unequal velocities and frequent aberrations, are corrected by that gravitation by which they are caused. The illustrious Laplace has shown that the approach of the Moon to the Earth, and the Earth to the Sun, is only a secular equation of a very long period, which has its maximum and minimum. The system of the Universe then is upheld solely by physical powers. The necessity of matter is the ruler of the world. It is vain philosophy which supposes more causes than are exactly adequate to explain the phenomena of things. Hypotheses non fingo: quicquid enim ex phænomenis non deducitur, hypothesis vocanda est; et hypotheses vel metaphysicæ, vel physicæ, vel qualitatum occultarum, seu mechanicæ, in philosophiâ locum non habent.

You assert that the construction of the animal machine, the fitness of certain animals to certain situations, the connexion between the organs of perception and that which is perceived; the relation between everything which exists, and that which tends to preserve it in its existence, imply design. It is manifest that if the eye could not see, nor the stomach digest, the human frame could not preserve its present mode of existence. It is equally certain, however, that the elements of its composition, if they did not exist in one form, must exist in another; and that the combinations which they would form, must so long as they endured, derive support for their peculiar mode of being from their fitness to the circumstances of their situation.

It by no means follows, that because a being exists, performing certain functions, he was fitted by another being to the performance of these functions. So rash a conclusion would conduct, as I have before shown, to an absurdity; and it becomes infinitely more unwarrantable from the consideration that the known laws of matter and motion, suffice to unravel, even in the present imperfect state of moral and physical science, the majority of those difficulties which the hypothesis of a Deity was invented to explain.

Doubtless no disposition of inert matter, or matter deprived of qualities, could ever have composed an animal, a tree, or even a stone. But matter deprived of qualities, is an abstraction, concerning which it is impossible to form an idea. Matter, such as we behold it, is not inert. It is infinitely active and subtle. Light, electricity, and magnetism are fluids not surpassed by thought itself in tenuity and activity: like thought they are sometimes the cause and sometimes the effect of motion; and, distinct as they are from every other class of substances with which we are acquainted, seem to possess equal claims with thought to the unmeaning distinction of immateriality.

The laws of motion and the properties of matter suffice to account for every phenomenon, or combination of phenomena exhibited in the Universe. That certain animals exist in certain climates, results from the consentaneity of their frames to the circumstances of their situation: let these circumstances be altered to a sufficient degree, and the elements of their composition must exist in some new combination no less resulting than the former from those inevitable laws by which the Universe is governed.

It is the necessary consequence of the organisation of man, that his stomach should digest his food: it inevitably results also from his gluttonous and unnatural appetite for the flesh of animals that his frame be diseased and his vigour impaired; but in neither of these cases is adaptation of means to end to be perceived. Unnatural diet, and the habits consequent upon its use are the means, and every complication of frightful disease is the end, but to assert that these means were adapted to this end by the Creator of the world, or that human caprice can avail to traverse the precautions of Omnipotence, is absurd. These are the consequences of the properties of organised matter; and it is a strange perversion of the understanding to argue that a certain sheep was created to be butchered and devoured by a certain individual of the human species, when the conformation of the latter, as is manifest to the most superficial student of comparative anatomy, classes him with those animals who feed on fruits and vegetables.

The means by which the existence of an animal is sustained, requires a designer in no greater degree than the existence itself of the animal. If it exists, there must be means to support its existence. In a world where omne mutatur nihil interit, no organised being can exist without a continual separation of that substance which is incessantly exhausted, nor can this separation take place otherwise than by the invariable laws which result from the relations of matter. We are incapacitated only by our ignorance from referring every phenomenon, however unusual, minute or complex, to the laws of motion and the properties of matter; and it is an egregious offence against the first principles of reason to suppose an immaterial creator of the world, in quo omnia moventur sed sine mutuâ passione: which is equally a superfluous hypothesis in the mechanical philosophy of Newton, and a useless excrescence on the inductive logic of Bacon.

What then is this harmony, this order which you maintain to have required for its establishment, what it needs not for its maintenance, the agency of a supernatural intelligence? Inasmuch as the order visible in the Universe requires one cause, so does the disorder whose operation is not less clearly apparent, demand another. Order and disorder are no more than modifications of our own perceptions of the relations which subsist between ourselves and external objects, and if we are justified in inferring the operation of a benevolent power from the advantages attendant on the former, the evils of the latter bear equal testimony to the activity of a malignant principle, no less pertinacious in inducing evil out of good, than the other is unremitting in procuring good from evil.

If we permit our imagination to traverse the obscure regions of possibility, we may doubtless imagine, according to the complexion of our minds, that disorder may have a relative tendency to unmingled good, or order be relatively replete with exquisite and subtile evil. To neither of these conclusions, which are equally presumptuous and unfounded, will it become the philosopher to assent. Order and disorder are expressions denoting our perceptions of what is injurious or beneficial to ourselves, or to the beings in whose welfare we are compelled to sympathise by the similarity of their conformation to our own.

A beautiful antelope panting under the fangs of a tiger, a defenceless ox, groaning beneath the butcher’s axe, is a spectacle which instantly awakens compassion in a virtuous and unvitiated breast. Many there are, however, sufficiently hardened to the rebukes of justice and the precepts of humanity, as to regard the deliberate butchery of thousands of their species, as a theme of exultation and a source of honour, and to consider any failure in these remorseless enterprises as a defect in the system of things. The criteria of order and disorder are as various as those beings from whose opinions and feelings they result.

Populous cities are destroyed by earthquakes, and desolated by pestilence. Ambition is everywhere devoting its millions to incalculable calamity. Superstition, in a thousand shapes, is employed in brutalising and degrading the human species, and fitting it to endure without a murmur the oppression of its innumerable tyrants. All this is abstractedly neither good nor evil, because good and evil are words employed to designate that peculiar state of our own perceptions, resulting from the encounter of any object calculated to produce pleasure or pain. Exclude the idea of relation, and the words good and evil are deprived of import.

Earthquakes are injurious to the cities which they destroy, beneficial to those whose commerce was injured by their prosperity, and indifferent to others which are too remote to be affected by their influence. Famine is good to the corn-merchant, evil to the poor, and indifferent to those whose fortunes can at all times command a superfluity. Ambition is evil to the restless bosom it inhabits, to the innumerable victims who are dragged by its ruthless thirst for infamy, to expire in every variety of anguish, to the inhabitants of the country it depopulates, and to the human race whose improvement it retards; it is indifferent with regard to the system of the Universe, and is good only to the vultures and the jackals that track the conqueror’s career, and to the worms who feast in security on the desolation of his progress. It is manifest that we cannot reason with respect to the universal system from that which only exists in relation to our own perceptions.

You allege some considerations in favour of a Deity from the universality of a belief in his existence.

The superstitions of the savage, and the religion of civilised Europe appear to you to conspire to prove a first cause. I maintain that it is from the evidence of revelation alone that this belief derives the slightest countenance.

That credulity should be gross in proportion to the ignorance of the mind which it enslaves, is in strict consistency with the principles of human nature. The idiot, the child, and the savage, agree in attributing their own passions and propensities to the inanimate substances by which they are either benefited or injured. The former become Gods and the latter Demons; hence prayers and sacrifices, by the means of which the rude Theologian imagines that he may confirm the benevolence of the one, or mitigate the malignity of the other. He has averted the wrath of a powerful enemy by supplications and submission; he has secured the assistance of his neighbour by offerings; he has felt his own anger subside before the entreaties of a vanquished foe, and has cherished gratitude for the kindness of another. Therefore does he believe that the elements will listen to his vows. He is capable of love and hatred towards his fellow beings, and is variously impelled by those principles to benefit or injure them. The source of his error is sufficiently obvious. When the winds, the waves and the atmosphere, act in such a manner as to thwart or forward his designs, he attributes to them the same propensities of whose existence within himself he is conscious when he is instigated by benefits to kindness, or by injuries to revenge. The bigot of the woods can form no conception of beings possessed of properties differing from his own: it requires, indeed, a mind considerably tinctured with science, and enlarged by cultivation to contemplate itself, not as the centre and model of the Universe, but as one of the infinitely various multitude of beings of which it is actually composed.

There is no attribute of God which is not either borrowed from the passions and powers of the human mind, or which is not a negation. Omniscience, Omnipotence, Omnipresence, Infinity, Immutability, Incomprehensibility, and Immateriality, are all words which designate properties and powers peculiar to organised beings, with the addition of negations, by which the idea of limitation is excluded.

That the frequency of a belief in God (for it is not universal) should be any argument in its favour, none to whom the innumerable mistakes of men are familiar, will assert. It is among men of genius and science that Atheism alone is found, but among these alone is cherished an hostility to those errors, with which the illiterate and vulgar are infected.

How small is the proportion of those who really believe in God, to the thousands who are prevented by their occupations from ever bestowing a serious thought upon the subject, and the millions who worship butterflies, bones, feathers, monkeys, calabashes and serpents. The word God, like other abstractions, signifies the agreement of certain propositions, rather than the presence of any idea. If we found our belief in the existence of God on the universal consent of mankind, we are duped by the most palpable of sophisms. The word God cannot mean at the same time an ape, a snake, a bone, a calabash, a Trinity, and a Unity. Nor can that belief be accounted universal against which men of powerful intellect and spotless virtue have in every age protested.

Hume has shown, to the satisfaction of all philosophers, that the only idea which we can form of causation is derivable from the constant conjunction of objects, and the consequent inference of one from the other. We denominate that phenomenon the cause of another which we observe with the fewest exceptions to precede its occurrence. Hence it would be inadmissible to deduce the being of a God from the existence of the Universe; even if this mode of reasoning did not conduct to the monstrous conclusion of an infinity of creative and created Gods, each more eminently requiring a Creator than its predecessor.

If Power be an attribute of existing substance, substance could not have derived its origin from power. One thing cannot be at the same time the cause and the effect of another.—The word power expresses the capability of any thing to be or act. The human mind never hesitates to annex the idea of power to any object of its experience. To deny that power is the attribute of being, is to deny that being can be. If power be an attribute of substance, the hypothesis of a God is a superfluous and unwarrantable assumption.

Intelligence is that attribute of the Deity, which you hold to be most apparent in the Universe. Intelligence is only known to us as a mode of animal being. We cannot conceive intelligence distinct from sensation and perception, which are attributes to organised bodies. To assert that God is intelligent, is to assert that he has ideas; and Locke has proved that ideas result from sensation. Sensation can exist only in an organised body, an organised body is necessarily limited both in extent and operation. The God of the rational Theosophies is a vast and wise animal.

You have laid it down as a maxim that the power of beginning motion is an attribute of mind as much as thought and sensation.

Mind cannot create, it can only perceive. Mind is the recipient of impressions made on the organs of sense, and without the action of external objects we should not only be deprived of all knowledge of the existence of mind, but totally incapable of the knowledge of any thing. It is evident, therefore, that mind deserves to be considered as the effect, rather than the cause of motion. The ideas which suggest themselves too are prompted by the circumstances of our situation, these are the elements of thought, and from the various combinations of these our feelings, opinions, and volitions inevitably result.

That which is infinite necessarily includes that which is finite. The distinction therefore between the Universe, and that by which the Universe is upheld, is manifestly erroneous. To devise the word God, that you may express a certain portion of the universal system, can answer no good purpose in philosophy: In the language of reason, the words God and Universe are synonymous. …

Thus from the principles of that reason to which you so rashly appealed as the ultimate arbiter of our dispute, have I shown that the popular arguments in favour of the being of a God are totally destitute of colour. I have shown the absurdity of attributing intelligence to the cause of those effects which we perceive in the Universe, and the fallacy which lurks in the argument from design. I have shown that order is no more than a peculiar manner of contemplating the operation of necessary agents, that mind is the effect, not the cause of motion, that power is the attribute, not the origin of Being. I have proved that we can have no evidence of the existence of a God from the principles of reason.

You will have observed, from the zeal with which I have urged arguments so revolting to my genuine sentiments, and conducted to a conclusion in direct contradiction to that faith which every good man must eternally preserve, how little I am inclined to sympathise with those of my religion who have pretended to prove the existence of God by the unassisted light of reason. I confess that the necessity of a revelation has been compromised by treacherous friends to Christianity, who have maintained that the sublime mysteries of the being of a God and the immortality of the soul are discoverable from other sources than itself.

I have proved that on the principles of that philosophy to which Epicurus, Lord Bacon, Newton, Locke, and Hume were addicted, the existence of God is a chimera.

The Christian religion then, alone, affords indisputable assurance that the world was created by the power, and is preserved by the Providence of an Almighty God, who, in justice has appointed a future life for the punishment of the vicious and the remuneration of the virtuous.

Now, O Theosophus, I call upon you to decide between Atheism and Christianity; to declare whether you will pursue your principles to the destruction of the bonds of civilised society, or wear the easy yoke of that religion which proclaims “peace upon earth, goodwill to all men.”

A Question of Ignorance


One of the more useful phrases, and arguably the most under used, is “I don’t know”.

There is nothing wrong with admitting that you don’t know something. After all, each of us can only know a tiny fraction of the sum total of human knowledge and an even tinier portion of that knowledge yet to be discovered.

I once taught a few classes to adults and I was frequently asked questions I couldn’t answer. My stock answer of “I don’t know” sometimes evolved into a useful exploration of the question and sometimes it was just followed with a simple promise to find out.

A colleague of mine was unable to use the phrase and resorted to bullshit instead. From time to time he was eviscerated by students who did not know as much Unix as he did but they did have extremely sensitive and finely tuned bullshit detectors. After one such class mauling, he went to his boss (and mine) and tried to get the two main miscreants fired. Our boss, a particularly smart guy, exercised the widom of Solomon and justice was served.

My colleague failed to understand that admission of ignorance can be a positive thing. It doesn’t merely a signal a reluctance to bullshit, it says that you are a credible source.

… and by the way; I don’t know doesn’t mean that god did it.

Cost of Freedom

Muslims protesting against murder of secularist
Muslims protesting against murder of secularist

A few days ago I saw Facebook post which asked: “If 8% of Muslims are radicalized, and 92% are “Moderate”, then why aren’t the moderate majority stopping the radicals from killing Christians, stoning women, waging jihad, committing honor killings and tossing gays from buildings in Muslim majority countries?”

A second post from the same source quoted John Quincy Adams as saying that: “you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it.”

I responded to the first post, in part, with the throwaway line: “maybe the moderates are too frightened to openly oppose a bunch of fanatical murdering thugs”.

… and that was that until I read today that Mohammad Nazim Uddin, a law student, was brutally murdered in Dhaka, the Bangladeshi capital on Thursday, 7th April.

It seems that Mr. Uddin, 26, was a Muslim apostate and atheist who had the audacity to express his views on Facebook and for that terrible crime he was killed. A quick review of my own Facebook pages reveals that I committed that same terrible crime less than 24 hours before Mr Uddin was murdered by a bunch of fanatical murdering thugs.

Some moderate Muslims are standing for freedom, and they are paying a terrible price for it. How many of us web  warriors and Facebook fighters would have the genuine courage shown by Mohammad Nazim Uddin if the penalty for our free expression was death?

Click here for Pew research on Muslim views.