Love Topples Faith, Part 1

Love Topples Faith

—An Imaginary Dialogue

So, if all our actions are caused by chemicals in the brain, isn’t that a dismal statement about humans in general?

Well, if the chemical reactions are as powerful as to make you feel like you have a free will, that’s something.

But if free will is an illusion, doesn’t that mean I’m not responsible for anything?

It doesn’t. Even if free will is an illusion, there’s every reason for us to play along. And even if we live in a Matrix-like simulated reality, that doesn’t change the gravity of what we do and what happens to us in this world. As long as the illusion is as perfect as to lead you to inquire whether it is an actual illusion (and to no clear end whatsoever), that’s the most flabbergasting illusion there is—if it is one! You’ll never find an optical illusion this convincing... The point is, claiming the world is entirely deterministic probably doesn’t threaten your current lifestyle at all.

What if people behave better under the guidance of a spiritual principle?

Well, that’s a whole different thing. If that spiritual principle is blind faith in the supernatural, it’s better to reject these superstitions. More on that later. If the spirituality in question is a completely abstract framework of belief, that might be entirely O.K. For instance: suppose someone in your family dies. The cliché thing to say is they’ll ‘always live on’—in our hearts or our thoughts. If you don’t mean that literally, but as an expression of intellectual acknowledgement of the love one feels for a deceased friend, that is viable. If you claim they’re watching you from heaven, that’s a misguided, sometimes selfish and even dickish thing to say.

To be continued...

Thoughts on Immigration

There is a current problem with refugees coming in tens of thousands to the European continent. Seeking asylum, fleeing from their war-torn homelands, a country like Greece, Italy or Spain seems the ideal point of entry for them; thereupon the runaways can seek real refuge, perhaps, somewhere in Western Europe.

The issue of accepting refugees is two-fold: firstly, the West ought to be more attentive to its missteps during the last three decades that must have been part of creating havoc in the Middle East. That is not to say the West is entirely responsible. But this crisis should spur a broad debate regarding military intervention and its role in Mideastern power struggles.

Secondly, the more immediate concern has to do with the ability on our part to take more people in. Europe is clearly not ready for a substantial migrant wave (which is going to come sooner or later)—especially countries like the Czech Republic with a small immigrant population.

So before we reach the apex of this immigration wave, the struggle is internal. Some European people are not poised for seeing the demographics of their lands changed significantly. Be it in places like London, Paris, Berlin and Vienna where first-generation immigrant populations are already vast, or places like my home city of Prague where you rarely even see people of African descent outside the city center.

I don’t like the conflict being reduced to a reincarnation of fascists on one side and hippies on the other. Especially when each side has bait to flaunt before the general public—a point of reference which is nothing but a fig leaf that ought to divert people from thinking of immigration as a contextual issue.

On the one hand, popular movements that denounce Islam are often just plain xenophobic pseudo-fascist gangs. Look, I’m strident in that I don’t let any religion off the hook when I say religion poisons societies and degrades people. That includes the essence of pure Islam, which comes from a book with especially nasty passages which encourage violence against the non-believers (thereby encourage violence against me). But I don’t know of a popular movement against Islam which merits a secular enlightenment banner, which I could imagine myself to approve of and figuratively march under. Seldom are movements this focused on proclaiming they’re anti-Islam truly about the ideology, not the person. So unless you hate the Muslim people, there’s little way for you to embrace that sort of right to far-right warmongering.

On the other hand, the reverse side seems awfully reactionary. Some people advocating for multicultural enrichment via accepting people from different lands and cultures are detached from a case-by-case point of view. Not that the essence of that idea is not viable. But the pro-immigration movement is often ad hominem ‘by-proxy,’ in that it negates the validity of what the other side is saying. The pro-immigration people are often reactionary in what they demonstrate on the streets, making a point of the fact that the ‘inclusive’ crowd dresses better than the anti’s, it has more diversity in race and gender and generally doesn’t smell bad. But again, the merit of the argument is sometimes reduced to logical fallacies: the more to the West you go in Europe, the more immigrants you find; we are the liberal West, hence we must first take in the immigrants.

So because I don’t feel like there’s a proper debate in the forefront, I’ll jot down my points.

1. There’s a semantic problem with the word Islam. I don’t want to import the religion of Islam, as—I suspect—few people do. But what some multiculturalists hear in that is the condemnation of an entire culture, an entire people. This is a large discrepancy. A culture in which Islam is the prevalent religion is not set in stone—cultures are dynamic and there is no defining holy book for culture outside religion. So, if you use the word Islam for any sort of prevailing cultural background in the Middle East, you’re using the word incorrectly, but I should do my best to try to understand where our language differs. I do not feel any sort of blanket resentment for the Muslim people, yet I reserve the right to criticise the ideology of Islam. With vigour.

2. No denying that immigration into Europe can bring about economic growth, valuable cultural exchange and some type of restoration of our moral credit (by undoing our part of the fault for the conditions which make people seek refuge here in the first place). But the premise of the debate should always be the following. No refugee, no matter the conditions where they come from, may claim the right to be accepted into Europe. The only incentive that results in accepting the refugee is the good will of the state and the people who decide to take them in. This good will is greatly encouraged, but not a premise of the whole dynamic.

3. On the internal level, the debate about immigration is not a binary battle. If the pro-immigration upheaval turns out to overpower the nay-sayers, there is no way to achieve assimilation of new immigrants unless even a substantial portion of the nay-sayers complies. Blaming the failure to integrate these people on the newcomer is easy and it is a good talking point in a debate, but ultimately, all of us will have to deal with this issue. On a personal level, civic day-to-day life will include some sort of communication between the ethnic European and the immigrant struggling to make it. In that situation, it is best to remain civil. Or, if you want to put it in somewhat nasty terms: do your part in maintaining the benefit of the doubt.

Germline Gene Therapy Is Frightening

Gene therapy is an array of methods where a gene is inserted into a patient’s body in order to treat disease. It’s a fascinating topic in biology and it holds tremendous potential for the future of medicine. There are two kinds of gene transfer. Firstly, somatic cell gene transfer is when you deliver healthy genetic material into the patient’s body: a super-exciting way that could take over the realm of treating genetic disorders, like the fatal cystic fibrosis.

Secondly, there’s the prospect of germline modification: essentially, let’s fix a hereditary condition by changing the genetic make-up of your sex cells. That way, your child would be free of a genetic disease that you happen to carry or suffer from. For understandable reasons, some scientists, while conceding that the former carries giant pros and few cons, are upset by the prospect of the latter. There are some papers on germline gene therapy, research is being conducted, but some of the studies remain unpublished, while the ethics of germline modification are debated.

The problem with this method is remarkably frightening. It’s one of those things where you can genuinely argue: this is a slippery slope. (Unlike people smoking weed and gays getting married, this is one of the genuine, dangerous ones.)

See, by changing the genetic make-up of your offspring, what you do is changing the hereditary capital they might pass on to future offspring afterwards. Not only are you fiddling with the genetics of your child; your grand-children and grand-grand-children might be affected, too. The ‘new’ part of their genotype might be passed on or not, but let’s be clear: a tiny branch of the evolutionary tree has been altered in this scenario. Its trajectory poked a bit to the left, a bit to the right, while human intention is the operator, the one that chooses what (not which, but what) design is selected.

Now, what’s wrong about this method? We use things like contraception: that fiddles with evolution, too, doesn’t it? We don’t live in an evolutionary world anymore, we’ve got hospitals, we’ve got vaccines, we’ve got homeless shelters—do I want to backtrack on the great advances of our society?

Nope. But there’s a fundamental difference between cutting the branch of the evolutionary tree and somehow actively defining evolution. In Darwinian terms, we’re still subject to the natural process of evolution and genetic drift: there is no creative force having steered the evolution of apes in the East African Rift valley all the way to us—we are subject to natural selection. And even if we breed dogs that drool the least and cultivate crops that yield the most, we’re only choosing from what we have, and let the evolutionary process run, for the most part. (But writing the code? we’ve never been that creative.) And even that artificial selection of characteristics has its boundaries: I reckon we’re mostly not keen on eugenics?

The point I’m making is this: just as the branching of a tree is expressed in some sort of a fractal (there’s a different pattern on every scale, a complex phenomenon where if you change one parameter, the modification is projected into infinity), messing with the DNA of a potentially infinite branch of your offspring, that’s a tremendously powerful imprint. And imagine someone wanted to cure baldness, splay feet or flatulence. For good.

I can’t think of a red line here. Is it only fatal diseases? What if the odds are 9:1, or 1:9, of a fatal genetic disorder? What is fair to eliminate until the concept of designer babies becomes reality? And who gets the treatment primarily? Is it the most affluent people? And what about a chronically ill person who insists on having biological offspring—shouldn’t it be mandatory for us to ensure that we do all we can to prevent the possibility of the child having to go through the same torment?

Even though I’m a big believer in scientific betterment of mankind, germ-line therapy is scary to me. Ethically. I’ve read compelling cases against germline gene transfer, as opposed to somatic cell gene therapy.

This is from an article regarding mitochondrial DNA replacement: a very potent and currently debated issue. I like it because it addresses the slippery slope argument of small changes leading to universal ethical concerns:

Supporters argue that [germline modification] concerns do not apply to modifications of mitochondrial DNA, which they characterize as an insignificant part of the human genome that does not affect a person’s identity. This is scientifically dubious. The genes involved have pervasive effects on develop­ment and metabolism. And the permissive record of the UK regulatory authorities raises the prospect that inheritable mitochondrial changes would be used as a door-opening wedge towards full-out germline manipulation, putting a high-tech eugenic social dynamic into play.

—http://www.nature.com/news/a-slippery-slope-to-human-germline-modification-1.13358

And it’s this ‘eugenic social dynamic’ that I abhor. I propose to you a rationale why germline modification should be avoided—if possible. Even, and especially, if you are leaning toward giving the O.K. on this method, I think you might agree with my premise: we’re living in something of a post-evolutionary society. In this society, it is moral to abort a deeply unhealthy foetus, it is morally superior to use condoms to prevent unwanted babies and we share the notion that charity and altruism are good, regardless whether you’re helping family, a friend, a stranger. The degree of relatedness is becoming an obsolete criterion for the moral imperative to help people.

Soon this logic will be pertinent to family—the concept will slowly be redefined and the genetic boundaries will be abolished. A family will become a circle of affiliations, a fellowship, a union of (dare I say it) love, compassion and shared responsibility.

In that society, the notion that one has a right to a biological son or daughter will be selfish by our intellectual standards. There are a plenty of genetically healthy individuals around the world, up for adoption. The seemingly selfless and loving (therefore morally superior) action will be to adopt a healthy child: and so the desire to imprint one’s own genetics onto offspring will be phased out.

That’s my thought. Being fully aware that this dynamic brings just about as many problems as it solves (it does not, in particular, solve the eugenic social dynamic as it pertains to artificial selection), it answers to the social dilemma of germline gene therapy in the present. It shows why our morality gives us certain licence to rally against this kind of medicine.

(If any of what I wrote on the science of gene therapy is inaccurate or too vague of a shortcut, I’m open to criticism.)

The Euro That Failed: a Greek Tragedy

The West sees words like justice and liberty tossed around frequently. The struggle to uphold, glorify, export, explain and expand liberty and to engineer, legislate, improve, monitor and protect justice is an endless one. And it’s apparent we can’t have both—or either one, rather—to the extent where it’s really desirable. Partly because a just Europe—or America—is one where the liberty to do bad is suppressed. The left-right, liberal-conservative spectrum is partly a debate on what you prefer: your freedoms, or your justice. Somehow amidst that debate, a macroeconomic tragedy perpetrated by the Euro institutions takes place, and sends an entire sovereign state down the road of neither liberty, neither justice. The Greek tragedy is just now unfolding.

It’s surprising how unconvincing the assurances of politicians, left and right, have been regarding the Euro. A common currency project—staple of the mission to unite Europe; to preserve peace and promote cooperation among Europeans. Oh, but if only it were that simple.

Somehow the sensible notion of a pan-European partnership, originating as an economic project in the fifties, got hijacked by the false notion that executive powers need to be centralised. It is not enough to merely create a legislative union or a common piggybank; now what is being presented is the false urgency to unite behind a common currency.

It is perfectly reasonable to eliminate protectionist policies when it comes to trading among the European countries, and perhaps strengthen them towards the outside. (That itself is not working well, with a disastrous trans-Atlantic trade deal on the table.) But the unfeasibility of the Eurozone as it is (and this pertains to Greece) is staggering. A monetary union now exists between countries with a common currency, a common exchange rate, left for the European Central Bank to fiddle with. But how (and for fuck’s sake, why) should two sovereign states with their own budget and their own fiscal policy (and let’s face it: their own economics) share their money supply? Greece is not in sync with Germany, nor will it be that way for decades to come. Clearly, the Eurozone is a peculiar hybrid between the neutral option and a full-on federalistic approach to Europe. There are two ways out.

The first is the obvious one—go for a complete transition. Create a political union. Eventually, federalise the Eurozone and redistribute wealth in a manner of solidarity. Subsidise, essentially, the little guy, much like Greece’s former finance minister Varoufakis would like it.

The second one, which I (mind you, as a leftie) advocate, is to disband the Eurozone completely. If you look past the doomsday scenarios the Euro institutions want you to believe, there is a possibility of a proper legislative union in Europe with minimal merging of executive power—a rigid path to build a competitive international body that is so far ahead on the environment, education, science and research, workers’ and civil rights.

What we see unravelling now is a culmination of what will continue happening if we let the neoliberal experiment to go as it is going. The troika of European institutions—Greece’s creditors—continue to stipulate conditions associated with loans to Greece which are (according to the ECB’s own analyses!) not sound. Greece’s national income will shrink and the prospect of it actually repaying the debt is dubious. Greece has become a debt colony to the Euro-establishment: the bullies and the dogmatists out to perpetuate the fallacies of recovery via austerity, the disaster capitalists.

It is particularly sad to see prime minister Tsipras of Greece cave in to the troika’s demands. Scenario one: Greece faces a prospect of remaining in the stranglehold of European institutions for three more years, due to the disastrous reform proposals. Scenario two: the Greek debt crisis is falsely presented as a cautionary tale for anyone who dare suggest an alternative to austerity. Let’s face it, when the troika proposes impossible reforms, it is for Greece to fail in the implementation. So, while Greece is treated as a debt colony, its assets privatised and its public sector disintegrated, the Greeks can only derive comfort from their bold and courageous ‘NO’ to austerity from the sixth of July. If only it had meant anything to the troika.

So when we debate justice and liberty as the cornerstones of our society, let’s remember that as we speak, a proud European nation is being stripped of both and becoming a debt colony. 

Letter to Richard Dawkins

So, for a while now I’ve been trying to contact Professor Dawkins. So far unsuccessful, but one can always hope. Here’s my letter for him.

Dear Professor Dawkins,

I am an avid reader of yours from the Czech Republic. I write to you with a question in mind which pertains to the public advocacy for non-belief. I have been a strident atheist for the most of my life. I live in a prominently agnostic country—the Czech Republic (where some 80 % are non-declared or non-religious). Currently I am attempting to understand just how broader the struggle for secularism is, than only tackling the problem of organised religion. The post-communistic mentality of disbelief did not eradicate what I choose to call faith-based thinking. It should be noted here I am not addressing religious fundamentalism, but rather a general leniency toward general superstition and disregard for empirical reasoning.

Once I heard you mention moral relativism in a documentary, much in accord with what I happen to believe, but the core struggle which I identify in the fight for real secularism is another kind of relativism. It is the relativisation of truth, the philosophical stance that truth is relative and two contradictory truths can coexist. Should this principle be challenged aggressively by secularists?

However rational one is in everyday life, a majority of European populations, I suspect, are perfectly comfortable with the idea of plurality of truths. It seems this is why the religious mindset persists.It is why people fall for charlatanish alternative medicine practices.This is why stridently anti-religious Czechs believe in New Age therapies.Last but not least, it might be why we are overly tolerant toward extreme religious fundamentalists in Europe.

The last of these points is especially alarming, with the majority of the Czech people whom I know dismissing opposition to the threat of Muslim militancy as interfering with the credos of multiculturalism.So many argue that the ‘reality’ of Islam, of jihad and of Sharia is as good as our secular reality. In other words, our ‘truths’—which really seems to be a wrong term for ‘opinions’—are equal and deserve respect.

I would love to ask you about the idea of relativism and its, from my point of view, dangers when classical religious faiths are challenged.Is the seeming acceptance of ‘multiple truths’ a semantic problem, or is it more than that? Is there not a danger that a newly convinced agnostic-atheist, previously under the moderating influence of a major organised religion, becomes vulnerable to other covert ideologies requiring, as Bill Maher likes to say so eloquently, the purposeful suspension of critical thinking? Is it not the core of the problem that there is actually an accord between being an empirically-minded atheist and a die-hard religious fundamentalist: that at some point it is necessary to affirm that truth is absolute?

I shall be delighted if you find an opportunity to respond. Many thanks for what you do.

Sincerely,

David Novak

Natural Sciences: Why You Should Be Interested

I think you should try being interested in natural sciences. I’ll get over it if you turn out indifferent to the details, but it’s your duty to at least look around for a bit and check things out. My path from indifference concerns entirely the fact of evolution and its, to me, unceasing beauty.

Biological evolution (lest you got all the wrong ideas) is a scientific fact—quite distinctly from the theories describing the process. The details of how evolution occurs we are inherently less sure of, but we’re extremely certain that Darwin got the gist of natural selection. And some fascinatingly intelligent people are working on devising fitting theories for the most complicated mechanisms in evolution. The most often you might tend to hear about evolution, though, is when flat-out denial is confronted.

Indeed, some people deny parts or the entirety of our collective knowledge concerning evolution. As an uninterested high-school freshman, I could have only sneered at the stereotypical redneck Americans—clutching to an age-old myth of a supernatural space-god modelling a plasticine Earth-sphere in seven days (prior to establishing the meaning of day as a unit of time). This never stopped being peculiar—just about every statement in the Bible has been negated and replaced with ‘it’s the metaphor that counts’—but the seven-day nonsense stuck to Westboro Baptist (et al.) doctrine like superglue. And so evolution became a social issue—a stigmatised ‘world view’, no good, no healthy. And it’s not just the Westboro Baptist types—it’s elected politicians in some parts of the world who believe creationist nonsense. But for me, in a Central European post-communistic republic, we sure knew better. We take evolution for granted.

But the secular people have a problem here. We have become accustomed to accept things without recognising what they mean. Taking shit for granted is not a kosher stance for an educated society. An average Joe, me ranking among these on things evolutionary some eight years ago, has no idea what we’re collectively subscribing to.

If you’ve never read of evolution or seen a BBC documentary about it, let me tell you you’re prone to misunderstand it. My concept of evolution, for years, has been just short of Lamarckistic—the idea that living things accumulate features during their lifetime. This way, change would happen over generations and we’d have a bunch of different species in no time, derived from one original. The erroneous idea of evolution from before the discovery of natural selection, really.

But oh, how beautiful it was to dive past the ‘I recognise evolution because I’m not as stupid as those who don’t’ façade. Go, I encourage you, and watch a documentary, do a Google search, or read Richard Dawkins on evolution. Your eyes will be opened to the true beauty of the natural world.

All living things, from an amoeba through a pine tree through a stomach bacterium to modern humans, have a three-and-a-half-billion-year-old ancestor. A humongous carbon-based family of Earthlings: from you through the guy over there to a fucking dandelion. It’s all interconnected. More importantly, life is designed by omission. There is no creator intervening in evolution, it’s just the vast amounts of time for the reproductively weak individuals to be left out of the gene pool, with no foresight whatsoever. (Actually, it’s not that simple, but the principle stands in general.)

So, that’s how I found I didn’t want to be a lawyer, a banker, an economist, a journalist. At least not primarily. Because in the secular pursuit of scientific truths, I think you’re bound to find beauty in something. A principle. A system. The selfish gene theory of evolution in biology, the potential to harness power chemically, the vastness of fractals in mathematics. That’s my case for the natural sciences. And with that vague endorsement and lack of structure, I’m kicking off this blog.

Enjoy.