Humanist Association of Manitoba

Inside HAM

A risk in the rise of gods

G Rogerson 2011-Apr-18

I was following the alarmism surrounding the Japanese Tsumani event as it related to their nuclear reactors. As it turned out, there were zero fatalities caused plant problems, and only three radiation induced injuries (now recovered). Yet the cries of Chernobyl! Chernobyl! and Three Mile island ... and worse, rang out. The hue and cry almost drowned out the real disaster of almost 14000 dead and as many missing. This was a media circus at its worst, yet unsurprising.

Another person following the story of media excess is Andrew Orlowski of The Register, a British technology and science news site. He, and a few others at The Register, are at once skeptics and jounalists - a rare combination in today's news media. Anyway...

Orlowski wrote a column Praying for meltdown: The media and the nukes, Science and the public lose out with TV's Hollywood disaster film obsession. In it is a most interesting observation regarding the willingness of many people to attribute agency to something when it supports their beliefs - in this case, an anti-nuclear position. As he says, it's an interesting metaphor:

First it assumes nature is a person. It then assumes this person is a) making moral judgments about humanity, and b) has decided humanity has fallen short of these moral standards is in some way, and is really angry about it, and c) is handing out arbitrary punishment. Strangely, the kind of people who trot out this metaphor are often well educated, and think of themselves as superior rational beings to religious people. At dinner parties many can be found mocking "sky gods" or "flying spaghetti monsters". But give them a natural catastrophe and they'll instantly conjure up their own Vengeful Overlord to throw back at human scientific progress. One who, uncannily, shares the same political prejudices that they do!

On relating the quote to Donna, she pointed out that this sort of thing was where the god stuff came from. Lightning and thunder, disasters, fickle weather - all treated as having agency (even god-ness) which needed to be appeased, or else.

Few scientists would subscribe to that as physics works quite handily (as metaphor is another matter). But many people do believe in "Nature" as having agency exactly as Orlowski describes (think gaia hypothesis). Earth worship is sometimes a part of it, but worshipping earth is supplication the same as it is when any religion is involved.

You have probably read how we are wired for religion / god beliefs. Immunity from it is not available, though the scientific method and scientific skepticism helps. You can see the wiring at work when people who (you would think) should know better start talking as if "Nature" had motives. Nature is a real and dynamic muliplicity of things, but to attribute thought, emotions, motives or any combination to it is equal to god beliefs. Physical systems do not care, they just grind on. If indeed you do something dramatic, nature reacts in exactly the same way water will boil if enough heat is applied: through laws of physics.

If you find yourself giving agency (intentions) to mere molecules, yet are an atheist, its time to give your head a shake. If you find someone else going down that road, you might want to ~~sell them some crystals and prayer beads for a healthy profit~~ point out to them that molecules and energy do not care, cannot care, about anything. This includes even the complex stuff: its just physics (and sometimes evolution) in motion.

Humanist Association of Manitoba
Home About Events Forum Values Links Contact
Inside HAM Membership Editorials Secular marriage Photos Library Shopping Support HAM Newsletters Camp Quest In the News	A risk in the rise of gods G Rogerson 2011-Apr-18 I was following the alarmism surrounding the Japanese Tsumani event as it related to their nuclear reactors. As it turned out, there were zero fatalities caused plant problems, and only three radiation induced injuries (now recovered). Yet the cries of Chernobyl! Chernobyl! and Three Mile island ... and worse, rang out. The hue and cry almost drowned out the real disaster of almost 14000 dead and as many missing. This was a media circus at its worst, yet unsurprising. Another person following the story of media excess is Andrew Orlowski of The Register, a British technology and science news site. He, and a few others at The Register, are at once skeptics and jounalists - a rare combination in today's news media. Anyway... Orlowski wrote a column Praying for meltdown: The media and the nukes, Science and the public lose out with TV's Hollywood disaster film obsession. In it is a most interesting observation regarding the willingness of many people to attribute agency to something when it supports their beliefs - in this case, an anti-nuclear position. As he says, it's an interesting metaphor: First it assumes nature is a person. It then assumes this person is a) making moral judgments about humanity, and b) has decided humanity has fallen short of these moral standards is in some way, and is really angry about it, and c) is handing out arbitrary punishment. Strangely, the kind of people who trot out this metaphor are often well educated, and think of themselves as superior rational beings to religious people. At dinner parties many can be found mocking "sky gods" or "flying spaghetti monsters". But give them a natural catastrophe and they'll instantly conjure up their own Vengeful Overlord to throw back at human scientific progress. One who, uncannily, shares the same political prejudices that they do! On relating the quote to Donna, she pointed out that this sort of thing was where the god stuff came from. Lightning and thunder, disasters, fickle weather - all treated as having agency (even god-ness) which needed to be appeased, or else. Few scientists would subscribe to that as physics works quite handily (as metaphor is another matter). But many people do believe in "Nature" as having agency exactly as Orlowski describes (think gaia hypothesis). Earth worship is sometimes a part of it, but worshipping earth is supplication the same as it is when any religion is involved. You have probably read how we are wired for religion / god beliefs. Immunity from it is not available, though the scientific method and scientific skepticism helps. You can see the wiring at work when people who (you would think) should know better start talking as if "Nature" had motives. Nature is a real and dynamic muliplicity of things, but to attribute thought, emotions, motives or any combination to it is equal to god beliefs. Physical systems do not care, they just grind on. If indeed you do something dramatic, nature reacts in exactly the same way water will boil if enough heat is applied: through laws of physics. If you find yourself giving agency (intentions) to mere molecules, yet are an atheist, its time to give your head a shake. If you find someone else going down that road, you might want to ~~sell them some crystals and prayer beads for a healthy profit~~ point out to them that molecules and energy do not care, cannot care, about anything. This includes even the complex stuff: its just physics (and sometimes evolution) in motion.
Copyright 2004-2011 HAM