Observations and inanities by a second-shift assistant supervisor in the Puppy-Grinding division of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy® (our motto: "Sure it's cruel, but think of the jobs!"), your host, Brent Rasmussen.
The Basics For Non-Believers
Vox Day asks a question:
[Vox Day] If Al, Brent and anyone else feels like pitching in, I'd appreciate it if you'd refresh my memory of some of the more common reasons given not to believe in God or Christianity, other than the basic "there is no proof your sky deity doesn't exist". I just want to make sure I don't miss any of the usual ones. I've already got these six, what am I missing?
1. A loving God wouldn't send anyone to Hell.
2. Omnipotence-Omniscience conflict. (I thought knowledge WAS power.)
3. The problem of evil.
4. Euthyphro.
5. I don't like God / If God exists, I wouldn't approve of him anyhow.
6. I believe in one less god than you.I'm sure I'm missing a few, so don't hesitate to chime in.
Well, I would not call this a basic reason for being an atheist. Proof only counts in mathematics and liquor. Plus, it is worded wrong. It should say:
"There is no evidence that your deity exists."
...not,
"There is no evidence that your deity doesn't exist."
Double negatives only confuse the issue.
Now, it is correct to say that there is no evidence that a god of any sort exists in any real sense.
(Sorry, all you folks who will almost certainly be visiting from Vox's site, but anecdotal "evidence" isn't evidence at all. No one cares about your amusingly touching personal triumph over adversity aided by your imaginary friend named Jesus. If you cannot measure it, it is not evidence. And no again, sorry, but we are not talking about legal, courtroom shenanigans as "evidence" either. Physical evidence is what I'm talking about.)
That is not to say that evidence won't turn up at some point in the future, but simply that, to date, there isn't any.
The six arguments Vox lists are great fun to discuss in philosophy class, or within blog comment sections, but ultimately nothing more than mental masturbation.
The bottom line for me is that there is no physical evidence that a god exists. All the rest of the arguments are merely refinements on that basic point, as far as I'm concerned.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Two reasons not to believe in God or Christianity
I was raised Roman Catholic, but I was a disbeliever* before puberty, my reason being that it was all so ludicrous that I could not keep my belief up. I doubt this is a "common reason", but it was my reason :)
Amongst the many silly things, the issue of miracles. The kind of miracles that defy the laws of nature are never seen - nor, from my perception, even expected by self-professed believers. The other kind of miracles are just improbabilities.
*I am now an unbeliever, which I consider even better!
Why shouldn't we believe in the Tooth Fairy?
The major reason NOT to believe in the Tooth Fairy is that I have never seen one. And if you think about it, how could a little fairy carry heavy US currency...and how would they get that legal tender? Would they steal it? or would it be counterfeit?
Ditto for gods. Never saw one of those either and all logic is against it...just like that cute little tooth fairy. And if you think about it ...no omniscient being could have/would have screwed up so badly as to make such a flawed specimen as mankind. We are the most deadly thing that ever happened to this once beautiful planet.
And how can anyone believe in an after life where the brain continues despite having been interred with the bones & nerves, axons, synapses etc etc?? It is so far beyond reason that it boggles the mind.
July 2006 Scientific American shows how humans "think" when it comes to ideologies of any sort (political, religious, etc). We "think" with the non thinking part of our brains!!!...in other words...thinking has nothing to do with cultural/ideological beliefs that are passed down generation after generation.
Which makes one wonder why do so many believe in a god? I think humans have a once-adaptive (and now non-adaptive) trait to join their ideological bound societies in maddness. ...remember Jim Jones?
Not specifically an argument against God, but...
Not specifically an argument against God, but, but the religious narratives we have that also describe physical reality get it wrong. And not a little wrong, but disastrously, stunningly wrong in a way fully consistent with a pre-microscope, pre-telescope, pre-spaceship, pre-computer, pre-atomic-and-germ-and-evolutionary-theory way. The flat Earth, the short historical timeline, the tiny astronomical distances, the outlandishly parochial view that our minute existence is somehow the point of all creation, every one fits in perfectly with a tribesman who has no frame of reference to visualize an atom, or a billion years, or to ponder that light has a speed, or how far it might travel in a year, or that a given light in the sky might be a billion of those units away or much, much farther.
This is not a criticism of ancient man. As Hank Fox said so beautifully in another thread somewhere on this blog, they did a pretty damn good job of explaining what was around them, considering, and we do them no honor by clinging to those explanations. Well he said it better.
Powers Of Ten probably did more to dissuade me of God's existence than anything in a list of philosophical arguments.
Color, Not Black & White
Just a bit of food for thought.
I can't speak for, say, the Bhagavad Gita or the Qur'an, for they lay outside my history of study. However, a few of the things you’ve said don’t apply to the Judeo-Christian writings in quite the black and white style you’ve stated them in. It has some to do with the science of hermeneutics (legitimate document interpretation—much like we do with the Constitution).
Though those writing do speak phenomenologically (sunrise, sunset, etc.), are you aware that that Jewish thinkers centuries before Darwin estimated the origin of the cosmos at around 15.3 billion years simply by reference to the Torah? Further, they had the lunar month figured at 29.53059 days, a precision unmatched by technology until modern times (1996 satellite precision refined it to 29.530588). Also, Isaiah (8th century B.C.) speaks of the circle of the earth, a word that can be used of a “sphere”. I am unfamiliar with anything in the Judeo-Christian documents that makes astronomical distances smaller, but rather the vastness is often used to stun or evoke awe in the reader.
Further, the factor of 10 is one reason I have come to a very different conclusion than you have. Morowitz calculated the chance formulation of a simple bacterium in ideal conditions as 1 in 10 to the 100,000,000,000th power. My point here is not a simple design argument—it’s a time and factors of 10 concern. With only 15 billion years to work with, chance formulations are pretty slight. For instance, if all the matter in the visible universe were converted into life building blocks and an attempt was made every microsecond for the entire age of the universe, it would only reduce the chances of forming that simple life to 1 in 10 to the 99,999,999,916th power. Again, time and factors of ten are what I’m getting at, not simple teleology.
Further yet, since we now know that the entire 30 billion-light-year universe is necessary for man to exist on this planet (balancing all the four major forces of strong / weak nuclear force, gravity, and electromagnetism), the powers of 10 factor has influenced many great scientific minds toward an anthropic principle of some kind. Not a proof for me, but it does seem to allow for other viable conclusions.
As you can see in my interactions with Jim, Dirk, and Hank, I’m not here throwing rocks or Molotov cocktails. In fact, I’m hesitant to even submit this, as I don’t want to be misconstrued as going on some offensive. I know, however, that you do value thinking persons, and feel enough at ease with you to think you’ll receive this as simply my musings. So, with some temerity, I’ll post it for, if nothing else, perspective.
Finally, though this sounds like a supreme copout (as Hank justly noted earlier), I have two jobs and don’t have the time or the energy to dialogue in a completely ongoing way. I trust my inability to do so won’t simply write me off in your minds, but will further my desire not to be seen as argumentative but relational.
Best wishes.
-Col.
Probability from the wrong end
Thanks for the feedback, Colonel, but that whole probability argument is off-base. Any object you can name is just about equally improbable. Pick up a rock, any rock. Its external shape, with all its curves and polygons in that precise relationship down to sub-microscopic scale, its mass distribution, its variegated molecular composition, the location and orientation of any crystalline inclusions or fossils, the precise stress distribution of any fractures in that rock... why, the probability of that rock existing is so low as to be just impossible! And yet there are millions of rocks in the stream bed, each similarly unique. You're looking at the probability question from the wrong end. The universe in powers-of-10 scale makes it almost a certainty that some worlds will exist, and that those worlds will be congruent with the universe from which they emerged.
One other thing - bacteria are very highly evolved life forms. They didn't just pop into existence. Lots of simpler stuff had to happen first, and if you are having trouble with that, read Dawkins' Climbing Mount Improbable.
And yes, the ancients got lots of stuff wrong, in a way consistent with occluded perspective. They thought illness was caused by evil spirits. They thought buildings fell by the will of God. They thought the heavens were supported on pillars, and that the Earth was created in six days. They thought the whole Earth flooded and that a man collected all the Earth's animals on an Ark. It didn't happen.
As for not dialogueing, don't sweat it. I don't fault you for being religious, and I'm not trying to convert you.
Morowitz datum complete creationist crapola.
"Morowitz calculated the chance formulation of a simple bacterium in ideal conditions as 1 in 10 to the 100,000,000,000th power. "
That's an old creationist misrepresentation of a scientific study.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/addendaB.html#Mor...
He didn't calculate the chance formulation of a simple bacterium. (What does that mean anyway? Does anyone argue that science thinks that bacterium suddenly sprung up by chance?)
Morowitz calculated the odds of there being enough energy to form life on Earth if Earth didn’t have sunlight and geothermal energy.
Which, of course, we do.
Please don't pass on creationist crapola. Use the Google before making an assertion. You'll be glad you did.
Not qualified...
OK, Col., I don't think that any of us are really qualified to argue the science of cosmology at the appropriate level..certainly I am not, and don't pretend to have the math skills necessary (nuclear physics was my first true love, but me and math just didn't get along after Calculus...so I went other directions). I would, rather, point you to say PZ Myers, the folks at Cosmic Variance, or even the Bad Astro Boy himself - Phil Plait. All three are regular reads of mine, and make the hard math bits easier for a poor fool such as myself. I think with a little poking around, you'll find that the Morowitz calculations (also seen elsewhere in Creationist sites/blogs/arguments) are not as dependable as you believe.
Regardless, there is one thing which I have distilled from my readings in the field: that given infinity, just about everything you can think of (and *many* things you can't) will, indeed, happen. That, actually, is pretty much the functional definition of infinity. Your mention of the anthropic principle is interesting, as most physicists tend to see it as being contrary to a designed universe. (The Wiki info on that is pretty good. It is a concept I explore in my novel to some extent. Sean at Cosmic Variance has a really nice bit on it you might enjoy.)
Anyway, while I do respect the ancient learning to be found in many different holy books, you can't just wave your hand and say that they are all the same. The calculation of pi in 2 Chronicles 4:2 is pretty clear. My conclusion? Either God was really hit & miss with this stuff, or there were a variety of people contributing, some with a greater level of talent than others.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Some Fun
Hi, Jim:
Got to the office this morning at 8:30, and just now got home from a late-night meeting--a long day. I want to respond briefly before I go to bed, in a way that I think you might just enjoy. I'm waving off everything that I could argue was erroneous in the responses to my last post simply to keep my presence here a welcome(?) one. However, you mentioned the Chronicles passage--something that doesn't serve as a proof for either of us and so can be addressed benignly. The problem is a mirage. An errant value for pi is only produced when the full text is not considered. It specifically states the width of the rim using the handbreadth standard. Once the two sides of the sea's rim is realized, the measurement is precise. (One suggestion is to within 2/100ths of an inch, but this is, of course, far too precise given the aproximation of a handbreadth.) Clearly, however, it is accurate enough for government work, as we used to say in the Yamaha shop I worked in. The Semites, after all, were highly valued for their metalugical work, as is clear from the art in Egypt celebrating it. They obviously could stretch a leather thong and get two accuate measurements, even without knowing 3.14. At any rate, it's a bit of math trivia for an up-to-calculus number cruncher.
Time for the rack--I need some z's.
-Col.
Waving off any responses
I'm quite prepared to dismiss the Chronicles passage, Colonel. There's enough other legendary/mythical stuff in the Bible. Just make sure your health insurance is paid up before you twist yourself into a pretzel trying to explain how the bible's a science textbook - you could slip a disc.
"Regardless, there is one
"Regardless, there is one thing which I have distilled from my readings in the field: that given infinity, just about everything you can think of (and *many* things you can't) will, indeed, happen. "
I think that's a misreading of what infinity means.
Infinity means that an unbound number of things will happen. It doesn't mean that everything happens.
For example, there are an infinite number of real numbers between three and four. Precicely zero of them are greater than one-hundred.
I don't care how long you look, you will never, EVER find a number greater than 100 between 3 and 4.
Apologies...
...,for I was unclear in my earlier statement, trying write it in a hurry and go do something else.
I meant in terms of probabilities - if it is *possible* for something to happen, then given infinite time, that thing will happen at some point, no matter how unlikely the probability. That is not to say that impossible things will happen - just that when someone tosses out a "well, that's highly improbable" as an argument (and yours refuting the Morowitz cite was better than mine, being more direct) they are radically misunderstanding just how looooooong infinity is.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
I rather like this turn of
I rather like this turn of phrase:
The odds against life forming could be literally astronomical, and by definition it would exist on one planet somewhere!
Re: Anonymous
Don't you just love the ego stroking that religion provides for the emotionally needy?
Anonymous states that "God doesn't need you, never has." Which implies that his god doesn't need any human. Yet he has already insulated HIS position by stating that "This is how god separates the men from the boys." Because he has chosen correctly(in his own imagination) god now has some reason to care about his spiritual pubescence, but not ours. How convenient!
I bet he feels so special knowing that he's right. Not just correct about one or two things at the moment, but truly right about everything for all eterinity because he can swallow bullshit without question. With skills like that, who needs to ask questions or work for knowledge, or even think at all? Which, I suppose, is why it isn't wise to rely on this "temporal cognition." God sez ignorance is bliss!
Something for Anoymous to ponder: If there really were a god, Almighty Creator of All, why would he spend billions of years(or thousands if you're ignorant) and go to all this trouble to create human footstools in his own image? Wouldn't a majestic creator god want something more? Maybe mindful, intelligent creatures who would strive to better themselves, that would be inspired by their existence instead of just dazzled and enslaved? Which would you want if you were a god?(Careful: an honest answer to this question may reveal more about yourself than you care to know.) Just something to think about if you've got the brains and balls. If you're even still reading. I'm not too hopeful though-in my experience, real men don't use "Anonymous."
God Is Unnecessary
Here's one to add to the list:
God is unnecessary.
We already understand a great deal about how the universe is put together and sooner or later we'll fill in the gaps, so there's no need for Him on that score. While we're making progress more slowly on figuring out the origins of the universe, He raises more questions than He answers in that realm so, nope, don't need Him there. Don't need Him to explain life on Earth. Got that covered from Darwin to Dawkins. And we certainly don't need Him as a foundation for morality (although His followers certainly do account for a lot of immorality.)
"GOD!
(whoa-oh-oh-oh)
What is He GOOD FOR?
Absolutely nothin'!
(Say it again...)"
This right here
I would have to say that this is my major reason for not believing in a god. God is unnecessary.
In the past, people may have invoked God to explain things they couldn't understand. They still do even now (thus the origin of the phrase "God of the Gaps"). But just because you use God as a reason for something doesn't make God real. It just makes the word "God" an excuse, and an empty one at that.
As I understand it, everything has a natural cause. Something that seems unexplainable ultimately has some sort of normal explanation. Invoking any sort of supernatural cause is just lazy; it's a convenient way to end any questioning or investigation. God is the ultimate stop-sign for those who are afraid to never stop questioning.
I guess a crude way to put it is that God is magic, and we know magic ain't real.
Others do as well.
Though I agree with the intent of your post, I definitely would have worded some things differently. I, for one, certainly care about these people. Though I fully disagree with their position (one that I think is intellectually weak), I deeply care for them as human beings with very real needs and concerns. You should, too.
See what we're up against?
Welcome back, Col.
See what we're up against? For every one of your co-religionists who is a decent, caring sort such as you seem to be, we have at least an equal number who are like that fellow. Or worse.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Misplaced
Sorry. The above post was intended for Anonymous User's: This is how God separates.... and should have been placed underneath it.
Carpe Diem
Your concern is touching. And I am not being facetious here. Would it surprise you to hear that we are concerned about you as well? We atheists don't want to see you guys waste your lives hoping for and praying to something that doesn't exist. Carpe diem. Make the world a better place for people to live in. Embrace and encourage science. Science is the key to making life better for all of us, not just the ones who believe as you do.
Imperfect
Thank you, Dirk (and you, too, Jim; I'll reply to both of you in this one post).
I do care. And, no Dirk, it doesn't surprise me you want to help others.
I guess we're all flawed. I'm sure "Anon. Separates" really does care, too, he just engaged his mouth (er, keyboard) before he thought through all he was saying. Done it myself.
From my perspective, of course, the very reason I'm concerned for people's wellfare is because God is concerned. Therefore, Anon's final paragraph was completely mixed up.
Let me be a bit vulnerable here and open myself to your guns; i.e. you may take this as either comical or be angered by it. My hope, however, is that you will understand the genuine intent, even if you disagree with the method. Viz., I pray for both of you, as well as Brent and Hank. It isn't because I'm lording something over you, see myself as above you, or any of that. It is because I trully, honestly care about you all. If I were in your neck of the woods, I'd try to do something more tangible. But since I don't have means to do so, please just understand that my intent is to care the best way I can.
-The Col.
Thanks Colonel
Thanks to you as well. It does sound a bit condescending, but I can see you sincearly have the best intentions. If it was said in a different tone, you would have heard the reply "you pray for me and I will think for you".
The reason I care about others is because of those who have cared for me. I feel very lucky for my situation and circumstances. Basically, I feel obligated. A great bumper sticker reads "Practice random acts of kindness". I wish there were more Colonels on the theist side.
Dirk
Jerk
"I wish there were more Colonels...."
Well, the sad fact is that I'm far too frequently a jerk. (Please don't ask my wife for the list of examples.... Actually, maybe I would be safe, you may not have the bandwidth for it...it's a bit long....)
I'm glad to hear others have helped you along the way. I think we're all indebted to those kinds of people.
Best wishes.
Col.
Caring
I appreciate the thought, Colonel. Thanks!
This is how God separates
This is how God separates the men from the boys.
If you think He's going to appear to you so you will believe in Him, uh, ain't gonna happen. He doesn't need you. Never has. On the other hand, seeing as you haven't a clue regarding much of anything past your own nose, it reasons that maybe, just maybe, relying on your own very limited, temporal cognition to understand what human existence is really all about may not be the wisest thing to do.
Your life, your death. Nobody cares. God does and He went to great pains to see that you have a freaking chance of it, but if you want to deny Him, that's not His fault. It's yours.
Oh, Really?
He doesn't need you. Never has.
Oh, really? Then why does he get so bent out of shape when people don't believe in him? All that "I am the LORD thy God" bluster; flooding the whole world in a fit of pique; creating a pit of eternal hell-fire to punish non-believers in? These are not the acts of a being who "doesn't need" believers. In fact, I'd say your Boy has got a bit of a self-confidence problem.
This is how God separates
"God does and He went to great pains to see that you have a freaking chance of it"
You obviuosly don't understand the meaning of omnipotent. If god is omnipotent nothing described in the bible was the least effort for him. So he went to no 'great pains' he simply did. Unless you mean Jesus' physical pain in being crucified. Another dumb argument - if god is omnipotent he could have he could forgive people's sins without the need for the crucifiction.
Tell you what...
...I'm willing to take my chances, and live with the consequences. Are you? Do you have the faith and fortitude to renounce all non-religious aspects of society, and to return to living life as defined and instructed *entirely* in your Bible? I'm talking being a goatherd, tech level circa 0 AD, et cetera. Hell, I'd even spot you being able to have tech up to the time of the Enlightenment, if only to just get you offline and out of our hair.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Post new comment