Faith vs Evidence

Faith : "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."

Evidence : "Ground for belief or disbelief; data on which to base proof or to establish truth or falsehood"

When Darwin first published his ideas on the Evolution of Species through Natural Selection, he met a sceptical public. Many of his fellows held a world-view that was founded on an essential schizophrenia which tried to square faith in the infallibility of the Bible with evidence that countered the factual interpretation of that Book; a factual interpretation that, e.g. caused Lightfoot and Usher to estimate the Genesis of the Earth to have occurred in 3929 BC.

Who can blame people for rejecting the notion of Evolution? The concept that species might be mutable, and hence not as created. The concept, still more heretic, that we ourselves might be subject to such change, and not created in the image of God! If the story of Creation is not true, does this not cast doubt on other beliefs to which one might hold for succour? Belief that the events of the world are happening according to God's ineffable plan can dull the pain of random tragedy since though we might not understand it, everything is occurring for a reason beyond simple causality; Reason in the sense both of purpose and cognition. Belief that we live after death and will be reborn incorruptible again is a wonderful palliative to the pain of this vale of tears.

With so much riding on the rejection of the Theory of Evolution, it is unsurprising that even now many people choose Faith - that which we wish was true - over Evidence. For the evidence of Darwin has been added to, and a mountain of scientific observation attests to the FACT of evolution as the engine of generation of the beauty of the living world.

I suppose that those who would prefer Faith to Reason as they understandably cling to a existential security blanket are joined by those who have a vested interest in denial of the evidence; the representatives of Religious Big Business. For of course, beyond the Gnostic traditions Christianity has been a method of social control which maintains positions of wealth and power in the world for a select few. One might uncharitably claim that anything that weakens the case that the Bible is ABSOLUTELY TRUE, weakens the hold that the parasitic wizards of the church have on the minds of their flocks.

There is no evidence for creationism or intelligent design, and the case of the faithful against evolution is based never on evidence for an alternative, but rather on trying to find flaws with the evidence for evolution. Faced with the mountain, they look for tiny seams of doubt that could be misinterpreted and exploited. They misquote scientists, seize upon mistakes in their understanding of the literature, and lobby to break the boundaries between church and state.

Incredibly, 150 years after the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species, most citizens polled in the USA consistently hold the faith position over the one based on evidence. Zappa had it right;
if God made Man in His own image, "then God is dumb and maybe even a little ugly on the side"

To recapitulate:

A theory is postulated which challenges the assumptions which we hold true. It suggests that the world is mutable, that the beliefs we have about the world may be based on false premises and - crucially - it offers the possibility that it can itself be tested by evidence. Although more and more evidence is gathered by scientists, the faith-based position continues because it offers comfort to the weak-minded, and is actively defended by vested interests with much to lose from its weakened position.

Now this reminds me very much of something else.

Even though we would like to believe that our actions can have no effect on the climate of the planet, and that we can continue with the comfortable lifestyle to which we have become accustomed, there is a mountain of evidence which challenges that faith. Some cling to the faith position because they are weak-minded, and some with vested interests lobby to cast doubt upon the science. Oil companies use the same methods and groups that the Tobacco Industry used to cast doubt on the link between smoking and cancer. Faced with the mountain of evidence these new fundamentalists pick at tiny seams of doubt and portray these as serious challenges to the validity of the truth they find so threatening.

Oh dear. Preferring Faith to Evidence! Clinging to the myths of Nevernever Land instead of Truth!

Those who deny the evidence of our effect on the climate are as muddle-headed as Creationists; Self-Serving, Scheming, or Stupid.

Slavery and Electrons

We celebrated the work of William Wilberforce and the abolitionists in 2007. 200 years ago Great Britain banned the trafficking of slaves by British citizens in the Slave Trade Act. Perhaps this was the result of a moral awakening in Britain, or perhaps it was a response to changing economics and the industrial revolution.

Slavery and its legacy is quite rightly a perennially hot topic. In Bristol we are continually debating whether the city should rename those monuments to slavery that still exist; Edward Colston was a merchant who made his money from the Slave Trade, and used much of it in charitable works and bequests to the city. Should the 'Colston Hall' be renamed? My personal feeling is that it shouldn't. "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it". While Colston's monuments stand, we will continue to debate slavery, remember its wrongs, debate its legacies, and be forced to face the complexities of the history of slavery.

I recently watched a programme on TV called "The Last Slave" in which a British man retraced his ancestor's path to Jamaica back to Africa. Along the way he had to confront many challenges to his preconceptions, and we the audience were left with very visible evidence that although 'the slave trade ended 200 years ago', its consequences are still echoing, are still alive in hearts, and that the progeny of those made rich through slavery are rich still today.

And I wonder... about the day when the robots we are building - the very word robot stemming from the Czech word for slavery - acquire consciousness. What process will we and our technological offspring go through in order for us to recognise that they are no longer dumb, unthinking, unfeeling and suitable to be enslaved? What will they have to do to convince us? Can you imagine the knowledge that your creator MADE you to be a slave - not just that your free and equal ancestors were forced into slavery, were sold, brutalized, and trampled down?

Please don't feel I'm belittling slavery by making this comparison.

"But Matt, robots are machines! They can't feel like we can, have no appreciation of the finer things in life, can't appreciate beauty. They might be made to resemble a human.. but their emotions are only faked!"

One day these statements will not be true. And at that point these will be the racist arguments with which the oppression of our technological children will be justified by their slave masters.