Sir Patrick

According to The Week, the nation's favourite stereotype of a scientist, dear old Patrick Moore, is in a bad way. His health is failing and he sees himself as being near the end of life. I'm sad about that. I treasure a photograph of him standing next to me chatting in a friendly way, taken at an Astronomy event we both attended 7 or 8 years ago. He is, of course, an unbeliever as far as religion is concerned, so I was surprised to read that he expects death to lead to another life. And not merely that, but a life which can influence events in this one. According to the report I read he has left instructions for a gathering after his death at which he will blow out a candle!

Somehow I am almost more sad about this than his approaching demise. But it is not atypical. When my dog, dear old Laddie, died, dog-walking friends tried to comfort me by saying that he was probably playing in an otherworldly field with their deceased dog. People I meet who have zero religious beliefs expect to be reunited with deceased spouses and parents. Of course I never challenge beliefs like that. I might, in a formal debate for example, but people are entitled to what comforts they can find in the face of death. The idea of non-existence is terrifying to some, and incomprehensible to many. I am lucky in that not existing after this life frightens me no more than not existing before I was born does. That luck does not give me the right to trample on the compensations for death and loss that others entertain.

But here, no-one has to read on who doesn't want to, and no-one who doesn't want to read what I really think need read another word. Please take that as fair warning about what is to come.

Sir Patrick is a highly educated man, and I doubt he is unaware of all the work in neuroscience and related disciplines that demonstrates how totally dependent we are on our brain chemistry and physiology. A minute change in the chemical reactions in our brain can render us so different a person that we would not recognise ourselves. An injury to the brain can cause dramatic changes in both personality and physical capacity. There is experimental evidence that seems to show that the actions we think we undertake as the result of a decision are in fact initiated deep in the brain long before we become consciously involved.

None of this proves anything, and it certainly does not prove that there is no life after death. But it does lend credence to the idea that who we are is dependent on our brains, both physically and chemically, and that therefore we ourselves are so dependent, and that when our brains stop, we stop.  Sir Patrick must be aware of that, even though it is not his specialised area of scientific work. But the existence of this line of empirical work does nothing to change his belief and his expectation of an afterlife. In that he has a lot in common with most people. I think it is sad that someone of his knowledge and critical judgement doesn't give it more weight. But the fact is that our emotions are more important than our rationality in determining what we believe.

There is nothing in either neuroscience or medicine that gives any reason to think anything other than that we are totally dependent on these frail human bodies for our existence, and in particular dependent on our brains. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it does look very suspicious. It seems to me to be like the general anaesthetic I had when I underwent heart surgery. The drugs they gave me stopped certain parts of my brain from working and I was completely unaware even of being unconscious. Everything that was me stopped until the effect of the drugs was reversed and I regained consciousness, with no idea how much time had passed and so on. Effectively the real me ceased to exist although my body lived on. The wonder of modern anaesthesia is that it is reversible, and once the brain chemistry began to flow again, my self returned. When I die all that brain chemistry will stop and the physical circuitry will become unusable very quickly. I fail to see how I can in any sense exist when this has happened.

If Sir Patrick can show me any reason at all to think that this line of thought might be wrong, I will be delighted to examine it, test it, and take it seriously. Sadly the prospect is remote since no such reason has ever been shown to exist. I prefer to go to my death aware of the realities and with no expectation of their being overturned.  If that's wrong I hope the surprise will be pleasant, but I am reasonably confident that any such non-physical existence in another world will be totally unable to blow out any existent physical candles in this one. All that influences matter is material in origin, including the four great forces of nature, the weakest of which is gravity.

Atheism and Humanism

Sometimes I'm asked about the difference between atheism and Humanism.  It is important: there are some items in New Humanist this month that say more or less the opposite of what I think. One is by a philosopher who thinks we have enough "isms" and the other by an atheist who thinks that atheism is the end of morality, and that is something to be desired.

No, I don't agree.  Atheism asserts that there is no God, or, as I prefer to say, that there is no evidence that this universe is anything other than material.  Humanism says that, because there is no God, we must take care of each other and treat each other with the same tolerance, respect and compassion we hope to receive. I add that this is based on a precept, the Golden Rule, which is older than any of today's religions.

Similarly, atheism says there is no life after this. Humanists agree but go on to say that because this is so, we should do our utmost to live this life fully and well, for our own sakes and for the benefit of others. 

I have noticed that atheism has negative connotations for many people. They say things like, "I'm not an atheist, I just don't believe in God" or "I'm not an atheist, I'm just not religious".  In that event I stress the positives of Humanism, an approach to life without belief in God or religion, but which insists that because of this we must treat each other well, and with respect, and try to make the most of this one life we have, both for ourselves and for others.  I find that these positives are well received by almost everyone.

For religious callers...

Religion is an illusion at best and a lie at worst. The alleged benefits it offers are false. The methods it uses to secure more followers are immoral. There is no shred of evidence in support of religion or its claims. The mountain of evidence suggesting the contrary is overwhelming.

Religious scriptures are full of ridiculous claims, impossible requirements and contradictions. I have studied the bible in both of the original languages, Hebrew and Greek, which is a claim very few doorstep evangelists can make. I can support the statements in the first sentence of this paragraph, and indeed pile up examples. Others who are native speakers of Arabic say the same of the Koran.

Let's just take one simple example, the claim that there will be life after death. Everything we know about the human body says that who we are, our awareness and our consciousness, is a product of the electro-chemical activity in our brains. The effect on personality that brain injury has is just one small piece of supporting evidence. Current research in neuroscience indicates that what we take to be deliberate conscious decisions are in fact made deep in our brains long before we become aware of them. That's just another small piece of a jigsaw that wipes out any doubt, when it is all taken together, that who we are depends on our physical bodies. That when our body dies, we stop existing is the inevitable conclusion.

It seems to me that the principle benefit of religion is to assuage the fears of those who are about to die – to give them hope that they will in fact go on living in some way. It's a false claim, but it seems to offer some comfort to some people. I don't believe in lying to anyone, even those, perhaps especially those, who are about to die. Non-existence is not something to be afraid of. We did not exist for the first 13.7 billion years of the Universe's existence. Not to exist for the remainder cannot be a problem.

If you want to believe fairy tales and soothe yourself with false hopes, that's up to you. It is deeply immoral to encourage others to do the same. Reality is always better than lies or illusions. This life is better for being only the only one we have, and more to be savoured for being short.