The Ghost Delusion

Richard Dawkins, Ghostmythbuster

Richard Dawkins is sitting in his office working on his new book, The Ghost Delusion. He is very excited, as it will show the world how ghosts are myths and how there is no more evidence for ghosts than there is for gods or unicorns.

His hand hits his inkwell¹ and knocks it over. The inkwell spills and spells out "ghosts are real - we exist".

"That's odd," says Dawkins, adjusting his glasses. "I wonder what could have caused that sentence to appear. It certainly seems almost designed." Luckily, Dawkins knows there is no evidence for ghosts, just like there is no evidence for gods or unicorns. He thinks about it and comes to the conclusion that there is no more significance to this spill than any other. "This is merely a random arrangement of molecules," he mutters. "It could have spilled any way, and it simply appeared to have spilled this way. Thus, it is insignificant and a weird coincidence, nothing more than a meme tricking my pattern-seeking brain."

Guess what happens next. He knocks it over again, and again the ink spells as it spills out "ghosts are real, we exist". Dawkins knows that there is no evidence for ghosts, just like there is no evidence for gods or unicorns, and after thinking about it he concludes that statistically, in a large universe over millions of years, such a pattern would certainly happen twice. "The anthropic principle at work," he says confidently. "Given enough time and enough inkwells, this was bound to happen." He ignores it.

He spills it again. The ink spells it again. Dawkins knows there is no evidence for ghosts, just like there is no evidence for gods or unicorns. But three times is disconcerting. A momentary expression of doubt crosses his face, but he quickly suppresses it. "This is merely anecdotal data," he reassures himself, "which is not scientific evidence. I need empirical, peer-reviewed evidence subjected to proper selection pressure, and then perhaps I could consider revising my views." He ignores it, though his hand trembles slightly as he reaches for his tea.

He spills the ink a fourth time. It spells out a fourth time. Dawkins knows there is no evidence for ghosts, just like there is no evidence for gods or unicorns. But he cannot ignore it no longer. "Very well," he says, straightening his bow tie. "I shall approach this with proper scientific rigor. To the laboratory!"

In the lab, Dawkins keeps on spilling, and the ink keeps on spelling. The cognitive dissonance makes him pace nervously, but then an insight strikes. "Eureka!" he cries out. "I have discovered a fundamental law of nature! When a person is writing a book on ghosts, ink will spill out spelling 'ghosts are real, we exist'. It appears designed, but it is not actually designed. It is a law of nature, just like natural selection. I can demonstrate it through repeatable experimentation."

Dawkins videos the inkspill and replays it in slow motion. The video shows how the ink slowly spills and creates splotches. "Aha! As you can see, the letters only appear slowly as it spills. There is no hand guiding them. There are ink splotches, which a ghostly designer would not make. And while the sentence certainly seems to show meaning and predestination, playing the video slowly shows how there is no meaning while it was being created. The apparent meaning emerges from simple inkblots through a blind process! It is only after the spill is complete that there is an illusion of meaning. I shall write a book, and call it The Blind Inkspiller."

---

Dawkins holds a press conference to explain his new scientific discovery. But he is challenged by questions.

"Mr. Dawkins," asks a reporter from the Scientific American, "don't you think it is a bit odd that the universe spells out 'ghosts are real, we exist' when a person is writing a book about ghosts? Occam's Razor would suggest—"

"Nonsense," answers Dawkins, cutting him off. "It is an illusion, a selfish meme replicating in your cultural soup. There is no evidence for ghosts, just like there is no evidence for gods or unicorns. Rather, there are millions of potential universes with millions of potential physical laws. We happen to be observers in this universe in which the law was to have the ink spill in these things that look like those letters when writing a book on the subject of ghosts. Had we lived in one of the other universes in our multiverse where the letters would spill something else, we would not have this law bother us at all. And there are probably other universes with other forms of life that assign meaning to other splotches that arise when spilled near different books that we do not assign meaning to. Furthermore, it is only the observer who provides meaning when he sees it, and if I had not spoken English, it would be meaningless. This is elementary memetics."

"But what about the statistical improbability—" begins another reporter.

"The argument from improbability is precisely what I've devoted my career to refuting!" Dawkins interrupts, his voice rising an octave. "Complex things arise from simple beginnings through cumulative, non-random selection!"

"Mr. Dawkins," another reporter challenges him. "Is it possible that it is ghosts trying to contact us? After all, they seem to be responding directly to your thesis."

"Nonsense!" exclaims Dawkins, his face reddening. "I've said to you many times, There Is No Evidence of Ghosts, Just Like There Is No Evidence For Gods Or Unicorns! I see you are having trouble following my train of thought. There is no evidence of design at all in these inkspills, as you would know if you had read my studies and books. Rather it is the appearance of design, a delusion created by your evolved pattern-recognition systems. 'Ghosts are real we exist' only seems designed because we are used to assuming words are designed. But now that I have demonstrated that this apparent design comes out of nature, and it has no more design than a snowflake or like the nice patterns in the sand that are caused by the waves. Design can also be used to refer to how things are built with plans and a builder. Arguments from design seem to conflate the two, as you are doing here. Since this comes from nature, it is not designed. The complexity arises through a cumulative process of unguided natural mechanisms."

"But Mr. Dawkins," he is challenged yet again. "Reports are coming out that when people write books in other languages about ghosts, the ink spills in their own language! Chinese authors see Chinese characters, Arabic authors see Arabic script. Are you sure that it isn't ghosts communicating with us?"

"Absolutely not," shouts Dawkins, pounding the podium. "THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF GHOSTS, JUST LIKE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR GODS OR UNICORNS." Rather, the fact that this spill is influenced by the spiller's language just shows it is a quantum effect, which means the multiverse is far more infinite than we thought. This is perfect evidence for the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics! There is no evidence of design nor communication at all. What you're describing is merely a manifestation of cultural memes interacting with quantum probability fields. The language-specific manifestation is precisely what we would expect from a quantum-memetic interaction!"

A scientist from CERN stands up. "At what point would you consider supernatural—"

"Never!" Dawkins shouts. "Science progresses by finding natural explanations, not by giving up and invoking the supernatural! That would be intellectual surrender!"

Dawkins ends the press conference and turns to leave. Suddenly, a gust of wind blows through the press conference and spills all the reporters' ink out too.² All the inkspills coalesce into a complex 400-page paper conclusively refuting Dawkins' arguments, complete with footnotes, peer-reviewed citations, and a foreword by a ghostly Albert Einstein.

Dawkins turns beet red. He clears his throat. This is what he says: "The fact that this paper is so complex just proves there cannot be a ghostly writer of it. Because if this paper is complex, that means the writer is even more complex, and who wrote him!? This is the fundamental flaw in all arguments from design – you've merely pushed the problem of complexity back one step! What you're witnessing is emergent complexity through blind physical processes – undirected but determined by the laws of fluid dynamics. The Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit applies to ghosts as well as gods!"

Satisfied with his response, he storms out of the press conference, where he sees a ghostly white tornado, hooing and booing, pick up parked cars, dissect them into hundreds of parts, and reassemble them into a fully functional Boeing 747. The plane even starts its engines and performs a perfect vertical takeoff.

"The tornado in the junkyard argument turned on its head!" gasps a physicist in the crowd. "Surely now you must—"

Dawkins turns back to the press, his bow tie now completely askew. "I do not know how this was caused, but I do know that there are no ghosts involved. Because positing ghosts when we have no more evidence for them than gods or unicorns would be a logical fallacy – a 'ghost of the gaps' fallacy. There is no reason whatsoever to assume ghosts exist. While I do not yet know the scientific explanation for this ghostly-looking tornado, I am sure science will come up with it one day, without having to resort to things that lack any evidence. Thus says Science!"

And Dawkins storms off satisfied, clutching his notes for The Blind Inkspiller.

Behind him, a translucent figure materializes and says: "I've been trying to tell him I'm the ghost of Charles Darwin, and I want to explain how natural selection actually allows for spiritual dimensions."

The ghost sighs, fading away. "Perhaps I'll try Sam Harris next."

1. In this story Dawkins uses inkwells. Deal with it.

2. So do the reporters. Deal with it.