This isn’t worth wasting a lot of time on, but it behooves us to keep up with the latest arguments against atheism. Over at USA Today, America’s biggest-selling newspaper, there’s an anti-Gnu piece called “How Easter and Christianity undermine atheism.” The author is one Anthony DeStefano, author of many saccharine religious books, including The Invisible World-Understanding Angels, Demons, and the Spiritual Realities that Surround Us.
Here’s his thesis:
Of course, it’s not quite fair to say that atheists believe in nothing. They do believe in something — the philosophical theory known as Materialism, which states that the only thing that exists is matter; that all substances and all phenomena in the universe are purely physical.
The problem is that this really isn’t a theory at all. It’s a superstition; a myth that basically says that everything in life — our thoughts, our emotions, our hopes, our ambitions, our passions, our memories, our philosophies, our politics, our beliefs in God and salvation and damnation — that all of this is merely the result of biochemical reactions and the movement of molecules in our brain.
What nonsense.
We can’t reduce the whole of reality to what our senses tell us for the simple reason that our senses are notorious for lying to us. Our senses tell us that the world is flat, and yet it’s not. Our senses tell us that the world is chaotic, and yet we know that on both a micro and a macro level, it’s incredibly organized. Our senses tell us that we’re stationary, and yet we’re really moving at incredible speeds. We just can’t see it.
This is remarkably stupid. Yes, our eyes sometimes deceive us, but DeStefano doesn’t seem to realize that we’ve invented extensions of our senses that are precisely the reasons we know the earth is round and is moving.
But get this: although our senses are fallible, our revelations are absolutely accurate:
But the most important things in life can’t be seen with the eyes. Ideas can’t be seen. Love can’t be seen. Honor can’t be seen. This isn’t a new concept. Judaism and Christianity and Islam and Buddhism have all taught for thousands of years that the highest forms of reality are invisible and mysterious. And these realities will never be reducible to clear-cut scientific formulae for the simple reason that they will never be fully comprehensible to the human mind. God didn’t mean them to be.
Yes, DeStefano, in his arrogance, knows exactly what God intended. And what’s his ultimate evidence for the truth of religions? The fact that some of their dogma involves bad stuff:
Atheists, of course, claim that all of this is absurd. Christianity, especially, they say, with its belief in Easter and the Resurrection, is nothing but “wishful thinking” — the product of weak human psychology; a psychology that is so afraid of death that it must create “delusional fantasies” in order to make life on Earth bearable.
But is it wishful thinking to believe in hell, the devil and demons? Is it wishful thinking to believe we’re going to be judged and held accountable for every sin we’ve ever committed? Is it wishful thinking to believe the best way to live our life is to sacrifice our own desires for the sake of others? Is it wishful thinking to believe that we should discipline our natural bodily urges for the sake of some unseen “kingdom”?
And while we’re at it, is it wishful thinking to believe God wants us to love our enemies? For goodness sake, what kind of demand is that?
If human beings were going to invent a religion based on wishful thinking, they could come up with something a lot “easier” than Christianity. After all, why not wish for a religion that promised eternal life in heaven, but at the same time allowed promiscuous sex, encouraged gluttony, did away with all the commandments, and forbade anyone to ever mention the idea of judgment and punishment?
But if religions are man made, and largely about control of behavior, what better way to do it than to offer both a carrot and a stick? The argument that an ideology or superstition must be true if part of it involves suffering is a novel one, but testifies no more to the truth of Christianity than to the “truth” of Stalinism or Nazism.
I wonder if he believes in alien visitors too. I mean, why would anyone invent anal probing?
Great one! And if bigfoot were fake, wouldn’t he chop your firewood for you?
“The problem is that this really isn’t a theory at all. It’s a superstition; a myth that basically says that everything in life — our thoughts, our emotions, our hopes, our ambitions, our passions, our memories, our philosophies, our politics, our beliefs in God and salvation and damnation — that all of this is merely the result of biochemical reactions and the movement of molecules in our brain.”
Not sure how this is an actual problem?
“But the most important things in life can’t be seen with the eyes. Ideas can’t be seen. Love can’t be seen. Honor can’t be seen.”
But they can, nevertheless, be quantified and examined. Unlike god.
“We can’t reduce the whole of reality to what our senses tell us for the simple reason that our senses are notorious for lying to us.”
Yes, but this is exactly how you arrive at a god hypothesis, isn’t it? Without hallucination, there is no god. There are ways to measure objectively.
‘Not sure how this is an actual problem?’
It isn’t, of course; it’s only a problem if one has already bought into the religious way of thinking – it’s pretty much the same issue a lot of the religious have in not understanding their own assumptions, and thinking they’re approaching a problem from an entirely objective point of view.
It’s interesting how so many theists seem to hold this simplistic notion about atheists, that we are genuinely implying someone or some group more or less sat down and made religion up from beginning to end because of some desire for an afterlife and an ultimate purpose. I’ve never seen an atheist make this argument: rather we are suggesting that the tendency to attribute agency to things, the need to have moral codes for an effectively functioning society, and the need to explain natural phenomena in pre-scientific societies has, in a very complex and tangled way, merged with various tribal customs and legends to form the differing systems of religious belief we see today, perpetuated by other sets of psychological reinforcement, cognitive bias, tradition etc. It’s enormously complex of course, which is why I think the religious tend to find it hard to deal with; it is actually much easier in some ways to just go with the idea that religion represents truth and avoid the mental exertion.
Until someone actually proves a supernatural process, I’m perfectly fine with neurons firing and everything existing within our brains.
That’s what I thought about when I saw Sam Harris. He’s right. All of this is a natural process, taking place within our brains, and, as such, can be studied. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that approach.
Apparently deStefano is too stupid to realize that he hasn’t said ANYTHING that undermines a materialistic explanation of ourselves and the universe. And a science-based, materialistic viewpoint is hardly a “philosophical theory” – he is simply using that phrase as a pejorative – just as it isn’t a philosophical theory to state that water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen. Dr. Coyne is correct in relegating this “argument” to the rubbish bin for especially fuzzy thinking.
Plus, a naturalistic approach has error correcting mechanisms which take into account the known ways our senses and perceptions can fool us.
Supernatural beliefs exploit these tendencies rather than correct for them. Believers in the supernatural never do simple scientific tests to see if their beliefs are distinguishable from illusions, superstitions, or perceptions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YymNb-pr-Pc
Instead, they turn faith (belief without or despite evidence) into a virtue and confirm their biases– just as those with conflicting faiths do!
The supernatural beliefs Anthony DeStefano believes in have no more evidence in their favor than the supernatural beliefs he rejects. From a scientific perspective, gods, angels, and souls are as unlikely to be real as demons, fairies, and aliens doing anal probes via wormholes.
From my perspective– supernaturalists all accept the natural world (except where it conflicts with their supernatural beliefs), but then they glom their supernatural beliefs onto it and cram it into their various gaps in understanding.
My guess is that Anthony DeStefano is trying to convince himself that his beliefs are less silly than they are by claiming that atheism is a superstition too. It isn’t, but then religionists are not known for their skills at logic.
JBS Haldane wrote “In practice I have found that professed materialists are generally less selfish than professed idealists.”
“But the most important things in life can’t be seen with the eyes. Ideas can’t be seen. Love can’t be seen. Honor can’t be seen.”
Straw-est of men! I get so tired of that one. Much of science is about the unseen, from quasars to quarks. What science is not about is things for which there is NO EVIDENCE.
why are they using our fuckin’ language?
It is, at the very least, an old creationist tactic.
Among reasons could be that it “hits back”, seems more reasonable/”appeals to the other guys’ mojo”, reduces fear by familiarity, looks learned et cetera.
It needs to be said that USA Today is not the largest seller because individuals buy it. Indeed, I think it is #3 or lower in all the regional markets. It sells more papers because hotel chains buy it in bulk to distribute to guests. In a similar manner few neo-Conservative bestsellers are sold to individuals. People do not line up to buy any given screed, it’s Scaife buying the books by the ton and distributing them to libraries. Of course it doesn’t prevent publishers from touting the astro-turf popularity.
You’re right. It’s a generic newspaper that has no local flavor. I was talking to someone from Russia once (don’t remember the circumstances) and he thought it was great that we had a national newspaper. I hadn’t really thought of it that way before. As a national organ, it’s a piece o’ crap.
The only time I’ve ever read it is when staying at a hotel.
The best defense is a good offense, huh? Why not address the charges of superstition attributed to you? Unless, you actually do realize that materialism is wishful thinking. I guess that would explain why you don’t go on the defense… you have none.
Umm. . . if you think materialism is wishful thinking, why do you take medicine when you’re ill? Or ride in airplanes? When you’re sick, why don’t you just pray to God to cure you rather than go to the doctor?
Daniel, if you’re going to spout this kind of garbage here, which is thoughtless, religion-driven drivel, you should probably go elsewhere. You’re just a troll.
Daniel, my dictionary defines “superstition” as, “excessively credulous belief in and reverence for supernatural beings.”
Now, I ask you: between religion and naturalism / materialism, which is it that revolves around supernatural beings and which is it that rejects them as fantastic?
Oh, by the way — a few posts down, I suggest a way that Jesus could help us solve our energy crisis with some help from the spirit realm. You will be so kind as to pray for Jesus to read my post, will you?
Cheers,
b&
You’re positing the existence of a being. You provide the evidence.
Put up or shut up.
Umm, I hope you realize that neuroscientists, cognitive scientists, and philosophers have been accumulating evidence and building theories developing materialism about the mind for a few centuries now. The modern formulation probably dates to U.T. Place’s ‘Is Consciousness a Brain Process?’ by U.T. Place (Place 1956) and H. Feigl ‘The “Mental” and the “Physical”’ (Feigl 1958), but the claim goes back to the Ancient Atomists, Hobbes, and d’Holbach. Many of the discoveries about the mind/brain from the last 40 years are simply stunning and it has been made possible because of a naturalistic/materialistic conception of the mind. If theists want to take the debate in that direction, great. It’ll be another area where we get to inform the public about scientific advance while the theists stick with some version of thinking the mind is an inscrutable, supernatural substance.
I’ll be glad to address the claims that atheism is a superstition once you post the definition of superstition you are using.
Also, can you watch this brief clip that demonstrates why prayer is a superstition and tell me if you agree per your definition of superstition:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BH0rFZIqo8A&feature=player_embedded
The definition of superstition is vital to the conversation, don’t you agree? In my experience, theists like to play fast and loose with definitions to “keep the faith”. (Also, if your supernatural beliefs were as wrong as you think Scientology and Greek Myths are, would you want to know?)
Um, isn’t that Islam?
The BBC made a terrific documentary about the 1994 Islamist plot to fly a jet into the Eiffel Tower. It featured a hostage on the captured plane – a man – who got talking to one of the doomed terrorists (all to die when French special forces intervened). The terrorist told the hostage that he was not to worry and that too would be a martyr and therefore have all the women he wanted in heaven.
This ‘reward’ aspect of religion is hardly theoretical; it was one of the drivers of the terrorist’s actions.
“Um, isn’t that Islam?”
Chauvinist. 😉 Not remotely true for Islamic women.
Plus: imaginary sex, not real sex.
It’s not real sex anyhow, it’s imaginary sex.
It’s METAPHORICAL sex. And if they are covered with burkas, hiqabs, whatever, it’s METONYMICAL sex.
Please explain?
As I understand it, metonymical sex with an human wearing a burkha, “hiqabs” (whatever they are), is substituting the name of one thing for another (in a sexual manner).
Nothing to do with conflating sex with gender, of course!
I may be dumber than a bag of hammers, but perhaps you might be able to explain your cryptic etymology to me.
Please.
OK. So, like WTF just happened there? Excuse the redundancy.
“Redindanz iz redindant.” – Feliz Catuz.
in christianity youre not supposed to, but technically you are allowed to do ANYTHING you want. just as long as you believe jesus died for your sins and accept him into your heart – free ticket to heaven.
“…our thoughts, our emotions, our hopes, our ambitions, our passions, our memories, our philosophies, our politics, our beliefs in God and salvation and damnation — that all of this is merely the result of biochemical reactions and the movement of molecules in our brain.”
Let’s remove half of Anthony Destefano’s material brain and watch the ‘non material’ parts produce the aforementioned attributes.
Or test his problem-solving ability after he has consumed a bottle of wine. How could a physical thing like alcohol affect his mind? I assume he would think it’s one of those “important things in life [that] can’t be seen”.
What happens to his ju-ju spirit of consciousness when he sleeps, ah?
Does is rise, Casper-like & go and raid the fridge?
Of course, when he gets drunk, it’s not the result of some lowly materialist process! It’s the spirit taking hold of his brain!
For Destafano the fact that our mental lives are “merely” biochemical is horrifying. To me, it is exciting and fascinating. Of all of the biological systems that have ever evolved, the human brain is surely the most amazing. It’s just sad more than anything else that he can’t relish that fact and has to fear it instead.
“Of all of the biological systems that have ever evolved, the human brain is surely the most amazing.”
It’s quite likely that the only reason we think the human brain is so amazing is because we’re using one to think it.
The more I think about the less it seems to matter. It’s what we think that’s so interesting, not what we think with.
It’s like saying that a brilliant performance of Beethoven’s 6th is not nearly as enjoyable if you hear it off a DVD rather than as a satellite broadcast.
Yes, as a matter of fact is is wishful thinking, because they are playing this roulette version of Pascal’s wager that they have it right. They are wishful, because by choosing Christianity they have put their chips on the right square.
Not to mention, of course, how many people so desperately do want to believe in Hell.
Not that they’d ever want to go there, themselves, of course. But most of them want to be assured that there’s an ultimate form of retribution that dishes out punishment to those who they think deserve it, and that’s exactly the function that Hell serves.
And let’s not forget all those whose fondest fantasy after fondling Jesus’s viscera is to watch the torments of the damned….
Cheers,
b&
It is what has been discussed here before, that some religious people are eager to see themselves be rewarded & others punished. It is possibly connected with our sense of justice – they just warp it to their own sense of what is ‘lawful’ or not.
I mean ‘justice’ in the playground sense of fairness. The problem for christians is that Jebus embraces the stray, favours the feckless, kills the fatted calf & feeds it to the useless returning son.
Actually, after observing many church services, there is often a sick pride in declaring one’s self as wretched and broken. They positively revel in their utter failings as a human – declaring such all with a smug smile on their face. Sickens me.
Long ago, a psychology professor noted that, in engaging in this type of self-hate, such people were implicitly calling everyone else wretched and broken while cloaking it in a facade of humility.
I’m sure that much of it is a “facade of humility”. But when you observe the pastor, week after week telling his flock how sinful they are, some of that has to hit home. That’s the whole point of Xtianity right? Being “born in sin”? So you have to grovel and beg and hope you are “good enough” to earn a place with Jeebus and not get voted off the island. I notice that this is a particular strong point in baptist sermons.
Fair point. ‘Facade’ is the wrong word. It’s probably the case that self-haters legitimately self-hate for the reasons you note; the fact that they consider everyone else wretched is a bonus.
Hmmm, to speculate, in an evo psychology way that will annoy some, perhaps it is a form of demonstrating fitness, and group inclusiveness.
I just found this quote from Czech neuropathologist František Koukolík (I had not heard of him either but he has translated Crick’s The Astonishing Hypothesis into Czech) – “Contra-intuitive belief does not need to be necessarily maladaptive.”
Jerry-I read Vincents new book “The Divinity of Doubt”.You have got to lampoon his chapters on atheism,and evolution.He commits character assassination on hitch(hes a prosecutor).He questions evolution with the why are monkeys still around argument.However,you’ll loove his stuff on the Catholic church.He buries them.Heads up-his argument against the gnus is that they attack religion,and don’t make any substantial arguments against “god”.Well,that’s because there isn’t much evidence for “god”,other than human fabricated religion.But then he goes on to….you guessed it-attack religion.
Please type a space after a period. It would make your posts so much easier to read.
Punctuated equilibrium?
any comments on Vincents book.who cares about my goddamm grammar.He just wrote a popular book,that attacks atheism,and evolution.Dont worry about my periods.Also,I would remind evolutions defenders that there are quite few a few unknowns,about the history of life.Weve got more things to do,than nip at each ther with cute little obsrvations.Its really true when they say the american left eats its own
Punk-Eek, Evolution-denial, punctuation, rampant mis-spellings, dismissal, neatly encapsulated in my observation:
Your reply stands as a testament to my rebarbative quip.
_______________
Post Scriptum:
I am not “american”, as you so egregiously locate me, but “Australian”.
With an capital “A”.
DeStefano needs a new dictionary, if he believes superstition is disbelief in ideas for which there is no evidence. That is absurd in the highest degree.
Also absurd is the idea that religion must be true since it constrains people from doing what they would otherwise like to do. Suppose for a moment that there is no supernatural deity – then since religions exist and are widely followed in their numerous competing forms, their very existence is evidence that humans develop moral codes regularly without actual input from deities.
Even if Stefano is correct, and there is a Christian god, then the simple existence of the other (false) religions with their millions of followers is irrefutable evidence that humans invent religions and moral codes and live by them without input from the an actual god. Some of those religions also undoubtedly required more self control and sacrifice than current christianity does.
A bit off topic, but Christianity is about the easiest religion to follow since it has the free get-out-of-jail card of accepting Jesus, which absolves all bad behavior done in ones life. Most other religions hold people more accountable. If anything, the belief in Jesus escape clause is clearly a sign of human invention – it is an obvious recruiting tool. Be a christian in one easy step! Other competing religions, like islam, require some sacrifice to become a member.
Try Calvinism for that get-out-of-jail card, and, I think, Catholicism (and therefore Anglicanism), where God knows from all eternity whether you will be damned or saved, but you don’t know until the final reckoning (whereas with Calvinism you can in this life, after a struggle, realise that you are one of the elect – ‘Amazing Grace, how etc, etc…’).
Of course, it’s not quite fair to say that atheists believe in nothing. They do believe in something — the philosophical theory known as Materialism, which states that the only thing that exists is matter; that all substances and all phenomena in the universe are purely physical.
The problem is that this really isn’t a theory at all.
Actually, whether or not anybody’s bothered to formulate naturalism in formal terms as a scientific theory, it’s an easily testable proposition.
Whatever their primary nature, DeStefano’s spiritual entities must, of necessity, interact with matter and energy. Either they actually manifest themselves or, at the very least, cause changes in our physiologies that might cause somebody to, for example, fall to his knees and utter the Sinner’s Prayer after glimpsing an ordinary-yet-pretty tripartite waterfall.
Either such manifestations rearrange extant matter and are powered by existing energy sources, or they’re spontaneously creating matter and energy.
Not only would such a violation of the conservation of matter and energy be trivial be trivial to observe, but the phenomenon that create them could, also trivially, be harnessed to create a perpetual motion machine that would instantly solve all our energy problems.
Jesus could, if he so desired, offer damned souls the opportunity to pay off some of their debt to society by acting as Maxwell’s Demons, separating containers of warm water into hot and cold water without consuming any energy in the process merely by operating a gate that selectively passes water molecules based upon their speed. (Maybe all they do is direct a human to press a button at the right instant.) The resulting temperature gradient could then be used in any number of ways to generate power. The process of generation, of course, would combine the hot and cold water to again become warm; it would then get sent back to the soul for more sorting.
And Jesus needn’t restrict himself to prison labor for the task; I’m sure countless noble souls would gladly take a shift or three in order to help the dearly not-yet-departed enjoy a world fueled by limitless clean energy.
So, which is it, DeStefano: the materialism of the real world, or the perpetual motion machines of your fantasies? And, if the latter, you will be so kind as to pray for Jesus to read this post and realize how he could make a real difference in the world, won’t you?
Cheers,
b&
Blockquote fail…sorry….
b&
Quick, get a patent in for that machine Ben!
You know…that’s actually an interesting thought.
The USPTO, of course, rejects out of hand all applications for a perpetual motion machine.
Yet this one would be powered by Christ.
The USPTO would therefore be forced to choose between approving an unworkable patent that violates their most basic long-standing policy or going on the record as rejecting the most important claims of Christianity (and almost all other religions).
The Christians themselves would be torn as well. Either they’d have to renounce their belief in an immaterial Heavenly Host that interacts with life as we know it or come up with excuses for why Uncle Bob, who gave his life as a coal miner so we could have energy, wouldn’t volunteer at the power station for a couple hours a week so we can have limitless clean energy. Does Heaven turn you into a selfish antisocial asshole who won’t even lift a non-corporeal finger to help your family and your country?
I don’t think I’ve got the bandwidth right now to do something like this, but any engineers / physicists out there who’d like to run with the idea, please go for it! Ideal would be a machine that a human could operate that would work as Maxwell’s demon, but only if the human were properly guided by a spirit in making the choices of how to operate it.
Cheers,
b&
In fact, in an interesting related idea, Karel Capek (who gave us Robots) wrote a book in the 1920s called The Absolute At Large, which is worth a read if you can get a copy from the library. I read it years ago…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Absolute_at_Large
That does sound interesting – I’ve recently read (for the first time) Brave New World and Slaughterhouse 5, and that sounds like it fits into the same vein of allegorical sci-fi. I’ll add it to the reading list (wearily – it’s getting rather long these days. Sometimes the internet is a curse; it just keeps reminding me of my own ignorance).
That is a very Socratic conclusion to draw!
Ahh, I too started reading Brave New World. It’s pretty dark so far, but keeping my interest. When I got my htc evo, it came with a free kindle app. There are tons of classics for free, and I realize how poorly unread I am. I am also enjoying Wilde’s Picture of Dorian Gray.
There is a new edition of The Picture of Dorian Gray – unexpurgated. It seems the original was heavily editted as it came out around the time of his ‘Indecency’ trial.
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=415943&c=1
Things change, or evolve.
(Apart from the digital photograph in my attic)
Dominic, for some reason there is no “reply” under your post. Thanks for that link! It was very interesting. I did not know that such an edition was in the works. It sounds so rich (I would have liked to have seen a picture of a hansom cab in my edition!). The author of the article makes a good point – will a more explicit Dorian Gray be a better Dorian Gray?
A couple hours after reading these comments, I suddenly remembered that Asimov had considered two different questions related to Ben’s suggested device. The results were, in my opinion, his two best works:
What would be the physical implications if we could interact with beings who aren’t from our material universe, using those interactions to extract limitless energy? (The Gods Themselves)
What would the theological implications if you could reverse entropy? (The Last Question)
You’re right, in the sense that this is not worth wasting our time on. This is back to debate about beliefs, old atheism.
We’ve engaged apologists (or liars) before, and we know the terrible logic, the assumptions, the fallacies and all manner of silliness in order to justify religious privilege.
People like DeStefano are only interested in engaging the ignorant masses, and keeping them firmly unenlightened, while position his quackery as truth, so as to gain power and make money.
Such is the tactic of all apologists and priests. We know the game now.
“Reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.” RF
I suppose I will never understand the fear the religious feel toward those who are, by choice non believers.
The excerpts from the article indicate more fear then just a desire to denigrate that which he makes the choice to not understand.
Individuals “free thinkers” are not new or gnu, they are simply more open and currently more prevalent in society, perhaps more vocal then in past history.
yes, i think that the layer of believing is very thin, they had to wear very dark sunglases not to see everyday reality. They fear because from all their relatifs who have gone to heaven, nobody has ever come back, and they don’t feel much help from them either.
“But is it wishful thinking to believe in hell, the devil and demons? Is it wishful thinking to believe we’re going to be judged and held accountable for every sin we’ve ever committed?”
Of course it is. That our oppressors face infinite punishment is the ultimate wishful thinking of the disempowered.
And Aquinas describes the delight of those in Heaven looking down on the sinners suffering in Hell . . . isn’t that a kind of wishful thinking?
I’m not sure I’d characterize this argument as novel. People have been trying to make their lies more believable by injecting or highlighting something undesirable for as long as people have been lying.
This argument style has been employed for centuries (at least) to “explain” why the various books of the New Testament flat-out contradict each other in the most basic details, believe it or not!
The non-logic goes something like this:
The NT must be true, for if it were concocted, no sane author would include such an obvious botch. QED!
Indeed, it’s even made its way into children’s literature and thence to Hollywood:
Cheers,
b&
This logical stumble is hereby officially named the “Ben-Goren-C.S.-Lewis-False-Trilemma-Fallacy!”
Mmmm…
(To self: perhaps I should have paid attention during those marketing classes)
“Judaism and Christianity and Islam and Buddhism have all taught for thousands of years that the highest forms of reality are invisible and mysterious.”
Hang on, so they are all OK then? Christian-inanity is not essentially superior?
“If human beings were going to invent a religion based on wishful thinking, they could come up with something a lot “easier” than Christianity.” – oh so christian-inanity IS the right one?!
“News and truth are not the same thing.”
-Walter Lippmann, Public Opinion
You were right – not worth much time. Although, it’s a great example of the abject level of critical thinking that passes for intellect among the devout.
This is just built on a gradeschool level of argument: “I am? Well so are you.” (Religion is superstition, well so is atheism.) Which is of course the flipside of “I’m not?? I am too.” (Creationism isn’t science? It is too – it’s Creation Science!)
Where’s Jon Lovitz when you need him?
Busy ACTING!
“yeah…YEAH…that’s the ticket!”
Lovitzian theology
This jackass wants to preach to us about superstition? He wrote a book titled “A Travel Guide to Heaven” for Christ’s sake!!!
They call Atheists arrogant?
PZ Myers sums it up wonderfully.
“When I consider religion, I feel two moods: either anger or hilarity. The reason I tend to feel that way is because religion is so damned ridiculous, full of crazy doctrines and absurd assumptions, and yet people believe in it so fervently. Look at most peoples version of Christianity: it’s an ornate death cult that makes up stories about an afterlife to justify your servility in this one. Its major premises are that we’re all evil because an imaginary distant ancestor listened to a talking snake rather than a invisable man in the sky. So now we’re all damned and the only way we can rescue ourselves from an eternity of sadistic punishments from this benign, loving deity is to believe, without doubt, in a magic Jewish carpenter, who was nailed to a stick, came back to life as a zombie and then floated away on a cloud.
“Of course, it’s not quite fair to say that atheists believe in nothing. They do believe in something — the philosophical theory known as Materialism…”
Of course, it’s quite wrong to say that atheism entails materialism, because atheists needn’t be materialists or naturalists. Atheism as such is nothing more than the non- or disbelief in divine souls/spirits. So, atheists may be substance dualists with regard to nondivine animal and human souls, idealists, or panpsychists. They may even believe in all sorts of nontheistic supernatural stuff.
Many if not most atheists are naturalists though. I’m a naturalist because I’m an empiricist. I’m an atheist because I’m a naturalist. To me, atheism is a relatively uninteresting corollary of naturalism. If there weren’t theists in the world, it wouldn’t even occur to me to call myself an atheist. I’m as opposed to any non-theistic supernaturalism as I am to theism.
Good point. I wonder how many atheists are, by nature of their use of logic to rule out theism, also oppose most other forms of supernatural claims. I guess I have taken it for granted that most atheists are also unlikely to believe in new age woo,alternative medicine, astrology, esp, ufo’s, etc.
I’m not sure where the majority lies, but I think there are many atheists that believe in other woo — they’re still trying to find something that fills some emptiness that, for them, materialism or naturalism can’t.
Whoa there!
Most atheists on this planet are the Chinese who seem to practise all manner of non-natural superstitions.
I contend that most atheists are NOT “naturalists”.
I bet most Chinese non-naturalists are really theists. Once someone admits the non-natural, it’s just too easy to admit spirits and gods into your vision of the world.
I’ll take that bet!
You appear to be executing the “No True Atheist” fallacy, well as the argument from personal incredulity.
I’m not defining non-agential supernaturalists out of existence. I just suspect they are rare. Start really questioning Chinese people and find out whether they think that Chinese medicine is supernatural but that there are no gods or spirits (like ancestor spirits). If you have polling data that’s even better.
From the CIA world fact-book:
Daoist (Taoist), Buddhist, Christian 3%-4%, Muslim 1%-2%.
Σ=94% Atheist at least, 96% at best.
Replying to reply below. First, Daoism, Buddhism (and Confucianism) are theistic religions. I’d love to know what the real statistics are, but I doubt there is any real polling.
As would I.
But until someone directs me to a more authoritative, contemporary and “on the ground” source as the CIA, I accept their figures as the best available.
And they more than support my original point.
If you have any over-ridingly superior sources, then I am more than willing to accept them.
Until then: my original assertion stands; vis: most of the globe’s atheists are not “naturalists”. (In the sense implied in the OP’s remarks)
I think Bernard might have a point here.
If a person has a shrine dedicated to the dearly departed at which she asks them for guidance and protection…well, if she were in ancient Rome, we’d call those household ancestor gods and declare her a theist. Same thing if she tossed flowers into the river while reciting poetry in an effort to placate the River Spirit so it doesn’t decide to flood this season. That’s true even if she herself doesn’t think of the River Spirit as a god; by our standards, it clearly meets the definition.
…and…she may well have pointed to a Christian’s rejection of Jupiter and labeled the Christian an “atheist” as a result.
There’s an excellent reason to suspect that at least some of the Eastern “atheists” are exactly as godless as the pre-Constantine Christians.
Even today, most Christians refuse to use the generic “god” term to describe a great many divine members of their pantheon. If the Olympians aside from Zeus / Jupiter are gods, then so too are the Heavenly Host. If Hades is a god, then so is Satan. If Romulus and Remus are gods, then so is Jacob.
We should be just as wary of blindly accepting the categorizations made by Christians when it comes to their assessment of non-Christians as when it comes to their assessment of Christianity.
Cheers,
b&
Exactly my point!
Thank you, Ben.
I think one needs to be very dubious about the alleged ‘atheism’ of East Asian people. There are all sorts of spirit and ancestor cults that members of Abrahamic religions like to call ‘supersitition’ (their own beliefs of course being properly religious and true), not to mention Confucianism and Buddhism whose credentials as religions you will often find Christians questioning. A good quality of these religions is that they are not generally so destructive or mind-destroying as the Abrahamic religions, though when State Shinto was set up by crossing local ideas about gods with Judaeo-Christian ideas about what consituted religion, it proved very destructive. And there are still strong and very unpleasant nationalist groups in Japan who are imbued with State Shinto beliefs and whom people fear to cross.
I was talking about Chinese nationals, not Japanese.
Why the immediate, silly, infantile, knock-down aggressiveness? I referred to East Asian people, which includes both the Chinese and the Japanese, about the latter of whom one hears much the same sort of thing asserted as you asserted about the Chinese. In both cases, the assertion is wrong.
I truly do not understand your reaction.
I made a passive neutral statement about my position:
I ask, in the interest of my sanity, how does your characterisation of
reflect on you, or I?
Rather poorly on you, I suspect.
But I shall leave it to others to judge.
All right, Michael, my sincere apologies: I misjudged your tone and was too hasty. But I must say that I find those CIA claims you cite wholly unbelievable. They seem to me to derive from the crude imposition of Western categories on non-Western peoples. Most Japanese or Chinese people, in my experience, would not – unless they are Christians or members of some modern sect – know how to answer you if you ask them what they believe in, since religious matters are not on the same explicit level as they are in the West, particularly the USA. In Japan, in particular, making explicit protestations about what you believe in is (if we except the usual offenders) simply not done. Again, the Chinese state is officially atheist and likes to believe that its people are, too (or should be), and does its best to discourage religion and its public expression; but what Chinese people (I have a number of Chinese friends here in Japan) do on a more private level is another matter. Finally, if you are going to define religion as some sort of explicitly stated faith in a single deity who resembles the Christian god, then most people anywhere are atheists.
Apology accepted.
If you, or anyone else, can point me to superior data on the subject, I should be happy to accept it.
But so far in this exchange, it is the best that any of us have, and it was requested of my by another poster, and it supports my contention to an alarming extent.
Well, I have just grabbed the following from Wikipedia. It makes far more sense than do those CIA figures (which sound a bit like Cold war propaganda to me), and I think if you Google religion in modern China, you will come across similar analyses.
WIKIPEDIA: ‘Nowadays Shenism-Taoism and Buddhism are the largest religions in China with respectively over 30%[11][12][13] (of which 160 millions, or 11% of the total population of the country, are Mazuists[14]) and 18-20%[15][16][17] of the population adhering to them, thriving throughout the country as the government is allowing them to spread.[18] Almost 10% of the population is composed of those regarded as non-Han ethnicities who following their traditional tribal religions.[19][20] Christians are 3-4% of the population according to various detailed surveys,[21][22][23][24] although American Christian press states there might be more;[25] Muslims are 1-2%.[26] The remaining section of the population, ranging between 40% and 60%, is mostly agnostic or non-religious; purely atheists are 14-15%.[23][27][28] Various new religious movements, both indigenous and exogenous, are scattered across the country.[29] Confucianism as a religion is popular among intellectuals.[30]’
As PZ would say, “Quack, quack, quack!” I find myself skimming these theist “refutations” of atheism more and more quickly. There’s never anything new!
Well, one of Coyne’s points was that there were something new. But not a good argument; “the more things change, the more they stay the same”.
So, Christianity must be true because it is so terribly oppressive to mankind. Now I’ve heard everything.
But wait! There’s more!
Jesus loves you, which is why he’s going to send you to Hell to be tortured for all eternity! But only because he loves you!
Cheers,
b&
Do we have to poke his gizzards for an eternity?
Folk who have worked in non-kosher slaughterhouses wish to know!
What is so scary to these people about a purely physical reality? It gets really old – really old – this painting of atheists as amoral nihilists. As if we don’t share many of the same basic human goals as they do. Just because I don’t believe in supernatural phenomena does not mean my life is empty and meaningless! I am watching my 12 month old son push around objects of various textures and sizes on the linoleum – he is learning about friction. Watching the understanding light up his eyes makes my heart swell with love.
When will they drop the “atheism is just another religion/faith/superstition” bit? Enough already.
“Because aside from all the logical arguments for God’s existence and all the miracles and all the truths contained in Scripture, one simple fact remains: 2,000 years ago, on that first, quiet Easter Sunday morning, Christ did rise.”
Oh? Did I miss something? Was DeStefano giving us these “logical arguments” and evidence that Christ actually rose?
What a bunch of ignorant garbage.
“Facts” & “Logic” mean different things to these recklessly vulgar partially brain-dead mentally-indolent quotidian dullards.
This PLoS One article may interest people – Born again Protestants & Catholics had greater hippocampal atrophy, or deterioration of the part of the brain associated with depression, dementia & Alzheimer’s disease.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0017006
It is true then – religion observably rottens your brain!
“Significantly greater hippocampal atrophy was observed for participants reporting a life-changing religious experience.”
Somebody should tell Collins.
“I refute it thus.” [/kicks stone.]
Science works, which validates observation.
Quick, some educate that man in special relativity and take him into the 20th century!
(That velocities can be relative and absolute speed doesn’t matter is actually a 18th century reformulation of classical mechanics, by Lagrange among others. Ouch!)
There was a faith healer from Deal
Who said, “Although pain isn’t real,
When I sit on a pin
And it punctures my skin
I dislike what I fancy I feel.”
There once was a Theist from Deal
Who had a conundrum blah blah
She sought a faith healer
But he couldn’t get near her
For her faith was all in her fucking mind implanted by tortuous indoctrination by her parents, priests, and her creepy Catholic Uncle who tried to have a feel of her thigh at her 16th birthday!
(To publisher: Does that scan as a limerick?)
Oh, the huge manatee.
Yikes, if this atheism stuff catches on it might hurt my book sales. Better write a column quick!
The argument that an ideology or superstition must be true if part of it involves suffering is a novel one […]
Indeed it is a novel argument (probably not, but yeah okay let’s be magnanimous and say it is). But it’s still brain-dead. It is a somewhat clever argument for sure (not really though, but let’s give it credit for something I guess), but it’s still freaking stupid.
There are plenty of cults that involve much more suffering, discipline, obedience, and renunciation than Christianity. They must be even truer.
Pointing out that your religion is hard to do isn’t an apologetic: it’s a recruitment tool.
There are plenty of cults that involve much more suffering, discipline, obedience, and renunciation than Christianity.
Altruism too can be added to the list. DeStefano wonders if altruistic tendencies are wishful thinking too. By which he implies that they are not. By which he implies that it is only possible with Jesus. So yep, recruitment tool it is.
This ‘suffering, discipline, obedience, renunciation’ needs to be connected with things like hazing and the often horrendous male initiation rites in some war-like tribes; I don’t think that nasty things are injected into the lies of religion to make them more believable, as someone said above, but that those nasty things are a way enforcing solidarity, and the believer’s acceptance of such stuff and practice of obedience, renunciation, etc is a way of demonstrating to fellow-believers his or her commitment to the group.
a way of…
Once again, cognitive dissonance theory to the rescue.
Hazing raises the cost of membership of an organization. You wouldn’t put up with it unless it were really worth it. The fact that you put up with it is therefore proof that it really is worth it.
Once our faculties for critical analysis get hijacked like that, it can be damned hard to break free — especially since the true source gets buried in all sorts of flowery language about tradition and ritual and what-not.
Cheers,
b&
Exemplified in:
“The Shakers”
Ah, ok. So ideas, love, and honor are either invisible and mysterious spirits — or God, angels, and heaven are abstractions. Which is it?
It’s the first one, of course. This is nothing more than another version of The Argument from You-Can’t-See-Love-With-A-Microscope. Once again religious people are applying mind/brain substance dualism to a quality, measurement, or concept:
reification: the fallacy of treating an abstract object as if it were a real thing
Sloppy, and childish. DeStefano apparently can’t get beyond the sort of concrete thinking which considers things like Love or Beauty to be hidden spiritual forces in some “high form of reality,” imprinting themselves then onto the physical world below through the use of magic powers. You can even visualize how they work by picturing them as sparkles. Like in cartoons.
Spirituality: the art of turning category errors into art.
I am reading a book right now called “Caveman logic” by Hank Davis. When I read stories like Mr. Destefano’s I completely understand his logic now. Caveman logic
“We can’t reduce the whole of reality to what our senses tell us for the simple reason that our senses are notorious for lying to us. Our senses tell us that the world is flat, and yet it’s not. Our senses tell us that the world is chaotic, and yet we know that on both a micro and a macro level, it’s incredibly organized. Our senses tell us that we’re stationary, and yet we’re really moving at incredible speeds. We just can’t see it.”
This is wrong on so many levels. The whole of scripture reflects naive physics derived from the misleading information provided by our senses — which is why, when science (based on methodological naturalism and aided by technical instruments enhancing those senses) demonstrated the counter-intuitive nature of the physical world, the Church fought back so hard (imprisoning Galileo for the heresy of claiming that the earth moved and burning Giordano Bruno at the stake).
Religious revelation has never provided any insights into these aspects of the natural world. Instead, layered over the naive physics of untrustworthy sense impressions, religion gives us men walking on water, bodies floating up to heaven, and the sun pausing in mid-sky to allow Joshua to defeat the Amorites in battle.
Moreover, the universe is (as science discloses) chaotic; it merely appears organized based on our unreliable sensory data, especially as filtered through baseless supernatural beliefs — leading to phenomena such as pareidolia (or “patternicity” as Michael Shermer terms it). It takes a fervent believer to find the Blessed Virgin Mary in the random burn marks on a grilled cheese sandwich.
Exactly: he’s conflated naive assumptions based on casual sense impressions with the empirical reliability of sense experience per se.
Of course, his argument actually works against him:
Our senses tell us that our mind exists in some realm higher than the material world … and yet we learned that this is not true: mind is what the brain does.
Does he really think he can use examples of discoveries of science which refuted simplistic intuitions to argue in favor of accepting what mental things “feel” like — and against materialism? If our “common sense” has not been doing that well over the past few hundred years, it’s not a good idea to suddenly appeal to it in neurology.
Science discloses nothing of the kind.
First, we have found organizing principles that has let us pose theories. Some of those are universal even (say thermodynamics).
This is not surprising since even in the face of stochastic data, Ramsey theory says that there will be regular sectors: “in any colouring of the edges of a sufficiently large complete graph (that is, a simple graph in which an edge connects every pair of vertices), one will find monochromatic complete subgraphs.”
Second, chaos as defined by science is (mostly) a consequence of determinism. Chaos follows if a phase space a) folds back on itself and/or b) exponentially diverges. Quantum systems show very little chaos as they can do a) but not b). Only in the limit of classical systems will b) occur.
I think you are referring to our evolved ability to find patterns in data. That is different from physical chaos of dynamical systems.
“This is not surprising since even in the face of stochastic data, Ramsey theory says that there will be regular sectors: “in any colouring of the edges of a sufficiently large complete graph (that is, a simple graph in which an edge connects every pair of vertices), one will find monochromatic complete subgraphs.””
What is the existence of monochromatic cliques in large coloured complete graphs(for an appropriate number of colours) supposed to do with chaos in the universe, or an absence of it?
As I see it, current dynamical system theory _does_ show the presence of chaos in several systems in the universe a very tehnical sense: in the sense of very sensitive dependences on initial conditions.
It is interesting to note that physicalism (materialism) is testable, and that this underlies some failures of superstitions such as prayer studies. But I will take a different tack and point out why it is a theory explaining the success of science, not that others haven’t pointed this out in various forms before:
Let us define the scientific method as the process that results in validated data and theory. Obviously it is itself validated by its success. But equally obvious is that it needs some measure of order to work.
However, our very existence points to sufficient order. And incidentally we know from Ramsey theory that there will be regular sectors that let us, and science, appear.
Corollary: When we can do science on nature, using natural objects as members of our theories, we can identify that as “science method”.
But all that ensures us is that we can find local use for science. It could happen that we would have found different physics in the kitchen as opposed to the living room. Enough to make some sense out of nature, but not much practical.
As it happens we find that consistency (background independence) extends locality to universality (same theories). And uniformity extends theories from locality to universality (same parameters).
[There are more details like gauge invariance that I will bypass as they don’t affect the conclusion.]
Corollary: When we can do science on nature, and not have “magic” destroy consistency and uniformity, we can identify that as “naturalism”.
But this is still not sufficient! At minimum we have a patchy science, that can be used in volumes and time periods here and there. But no guarantee that it holds for all volumes, all times, or all objects.
As it happens we find that monism extends locality to universality (same physics). That is, we do not observe pluralisms such as souls and/or creators that lead to non-conservation of energy. And we can test such a hypothesis (say, on conservation of energy).
Corollary: When we can do science on nature, and not have “magic” destroy monism, we can identify that as “physicalism”.
In sum, it looks like an innocent but “strident” hypothesis to pose monism of nature. But it may be a vital part of what makes science what it is.
It is also notable that this explains and is strengthened by the existence of quantum mechanics, relativity and realism. Quantum mechanics combined with relativity is inimical to dualisms as it prohibits hidden variables.
“However, our very existence points to sufficient order. And incidentally we know from Ramsey theory that there will be regular sectors that let us, and science, appear.”
Citation needed. Ramsey theory says nothing of the kind. It is a study of a particular discrete structure, not of the physical structure of the universe.
I feel like I have to rebut the theocratic rhetoric because my objections were not voiced.
First, materialism is the only model with any demonstrable efficacy. I don’t believe in it, I accept the degree to which it is accurate. If someone can demonstrate something immaterial with substantive evidence, I’ll be on board. So far all I’ve heard are people misunderstanding what materialism is, most of which amount to something like this:
Fucking magnets, how do they work?
Secondly, NO! Materialism is not intuitively true, it is not what our senses tell us. It defies our intuitions and our common sense. Physical matter is mostly empty space, that still blows my mind a little.
Thirdly, conflating materialism with a geocentric universe and a flat earth is just dishonest. And if you know even a tiny fraction of a slice of quantum theory you know on a micro scale, the world is chaotic. It’s one mindf*** after another.
Everything after that is an idiotic word game and double think. I have nothing to utter to that other than a guffaw.
I think they read Hitchins and Harris and can’t take them, so postulize 180 degrees out. It hurts them so!
“The argument that an ideology or superstition must be true if part of it involves suffering is a novel one …”
Well it is if ‘novel’ means over 2600 years old.
On other topics, can DeStefano get nothing right? I’ve met many atheists who do not claim to believe in materialism – they reject this god thing for lack of evidence. The bible claims a real fantastic creature which interacted with man. Strangely, this creature resembled many other mythical creatures which had come before and yet there is no evidence whatsoever for this beast nor any evidence to support any claims made on behalf of this creature. Prayer works? Hahaha. Evil people will be punished in an invisible oven? Good people go to an invisible magic garden? Not a trace of evidence, yet people like DeStefano claim it is somehow all true. Ask DeStefano who is the greater god – Buddha or his Judeo-Christian god?
I just finished writing an extensive rebuttal to DeStefano’s nonsense here:
http://consciousstarstuff.tumblr.com/post/5095349047/materialism-and-naturalism-are-myths
Hope you find it useful and enjoyable. 🙂
I have a problem reading drivel like this. I know we should know the arguments against us but it’s really hard to read it, downright painful actually. I mean truly. They build up strawmen, light fires to them, knock them down, trample all over them. Then just for spite build new strawmen, because we didn’t take their first ones too seriously, and do the same thing all over again. *groan*
If this is really the best they have than I’m truly disappointed. Flowery language, mincing of words and sounding superior does not impress me or any atheist I know. It just pisses us off.
Now if we can just get everyone else to see how foolish these people truly are then we might have a chance.
Just for point of interest. Here is the Einstein quote in full.
“The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of true art and true science. Whoever does not know it and can no longer wonder, no longer marvel, is as good as dead, and his eyes are dimmed. It was the experience of mystery — even if mixed with fear — that engendered religion. A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, our perceptions of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which only in their most primitive forms are accessible to our minds: it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute true religiosity. In this sense, and only this sense, I am a deeply religious man. I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind the we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egotism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature.”
-Albert Einstein, The World As I See It
[Source: Ideas and Opinions pp. 11-12]
Is that verbatim, or a translation from the German?
According to the edition notes (I think that’s what they are called) it’s “Based on Mein Weltbild, edited by Carl Seelig, and other sources.”
Ah, yes. It is a translation from German to English.
He needs to read “The Jesus Mysterious: Was the Original Jesus a Pagan God” and “The Laughing Jesus” very well researched books. He does not have a leg to stand on because the bible is all fantasy….then there is NO truth to it. There are more and more christian scholars each year are saying that the bible has NO historical truth to it. So his talking is blah blah blah blah blah!
I assume that this is extreme hyperbole?
The various bibles are replete with geographical truths, as one example.
Well, London and Denmark are both real, but I don’t think too many people would get upset at a statement that neither Harry Potter not Hamlet have any historical truth to them.
And even the most fantastic of fiction generally still has humans or human-like organisms in the stories; one could suggest that such therefore constitutes a tiny nugget of historical truth (the existence of humanoids).
Methinks your bar is set just a wee bit too low to be useful.
Cheers,
b&
I politely & sincerely thank thee for reminding me that the majority of the globe’s humans do not have Asperger’s syndrome. 🙂
Sometimes (all the time?) I read communications literally.
I am not sure if it is a blessing, or a curse.
Torbjörn Larsson, OM:
‘”Moreover, the universe is (as science discloses) chaotic; it merely appears organized based on our unreliable sensory data.’
Science discloses nothing of the kind.”
After posting my comment I had the experience I consider a hybrid between “staircase wit” and “Murphy’s Law”: immediately after hitting the send button, coming to the realization that, in some implication collateral to your main point, the assertion just sent irretrievably into cyberspace is scientifically unsupportable and probably incorrect. As a categorical statement that the universe is in all respects chaotic my assertion was wrong. Your response, however, to the extent it asserts categorically that science has disclosed that “nothing” in the universe is chaotic, is also incorrect.
The salient points I sought to make in rebuttal of DeStefano were two: First, that it is not our sensory data (whether they tend to be trustworthy or not) that disclose the universe to be in some ways chaotic; that insight came by way of scientific inquiry. Second, that supernatural thinking does not, contrary to DeStefano’s contention, refute false, sensory-based suppositions regarding the universe’s chaotic nature by revealing it to be “incredibly organized”; supernatural thinking instead exacerbates false notions about structure and organization in the universe, as in the case of religiously triggered pareidolia.
Point taken, TL, OM — in part.
Clearly, DeStefano is not familiar w/ Nietzsche’s whole body of work highlighting the principle satisfaction derived from positing inaccessible and unassailable metaphysical revenge. It’s what gives weight to the hammer of self-righteousness.
As for the whole ‘invisibility’ argument, that’s prettpuerilele. Of course we need to *see*/experience actual examples of love, honor, etc in the material world in order to qualify them. This is the sharpshooter fallacy we always find in Platonic entities arguments.
It’s evidently time to rename the newspaper to ‘USA Yesterday’….