Definitions

An agnostic is a person who has no (scientific) knowledge of any gods.  This describes everybody.  People who nevertheless believe in at least one god are theists.  People who lack a belief in all gods are atheists.  People who don’t care enough to take a position are apatheists.  Most atheists disbelieve in the existence of anything supernatural.

Burden of Proof

A theist makes the positive claim that at least one god does exist.  Therefore, theists have the burden of proof to demonstrate the existence of a god

Atheists do not have to “disprove” the existence of gods.  Atheists need only demonstrate that there is no evidence or compelling reason to believe in any gods.

Worldviews

The theistic worldview presupposes the existence of one or more supernatural beings and/or a supernatural world that precedes and supercedes the natural world.  Typically, a supernatural god creates the natural world out of nothing and rules over it.  This is a “top-down” view of existence.

The atheistic worldview observes the natural world and makes no leaps of faith regarding the existence of a supernatural world or beings.  This is a “bottom-up” view of existence.

Six Questions
There are no verifiable answers to any of the following six questions:

1. What are gods composed of? – What is “spirit”?
2. What are the attributes of gods? – Stories of various gods list differing attributes: eternal vs. being born and dying; omni-present vs. confined to certain areas; all-powerful vs. limited powers; all-knowing vs. limited knowledge; all-loving vs. evil vs. temperamental vs. indifferent.
3. What mechanisms do gods use to accomplish things? – How does a god create something from nothing?  How does a god tinker with our DNA?  “Miracles” and “magic” are not useful answers.
4. How many gods are there?
5. Where are gods located?
6. What difference does it make? – If the god that most people believe exists were to suddenly disappear, what would change in the natural world?

Six Problems

1. The Problem of Scale – If humans are the ultimate goal of a god’s creation of the universe, why did this god create 100 billion galaxies when only a single star and a single planet were necessary?  Why did 12 billion years pass before we showed up?
2. The Problem of Silence – If a god exists who wants us to be aware of its existence, then why doesn’t it clearly reveal itself?  And if the punishment for not believing is eternal hellfire, then it is cruel for this god not to convincingly reveal itself.
3. The Problem of Holy Books – If a god exists who wants us to understand him, why are his “revelations” so confusing?  Why do we have so many different religions and holy books?
4. The Problem of Evil – If a god exists who is both all-powerful and all-loving, then why do natural evils, such as natural disasters, diseases, and birth defects, exist?
5. The Problem of Unintelligent Design – If an all-powerful, all-wise god designed us and other life forms, why didn’t he do a better job?  For example, why do our breathing and swallowing passages intersect so that we can choke to death on food?  Why have 99% of all species that have ever existed gone extinct?  (See the website: “Some More of God’s Greatest Mistakes” at tinyurl.com/BadDesign)
6. The Problem of Free Will – If a god exists who knows the future, this means humans have no free will.  Yet it is often claimed that this god will judge, reward, and punish us based on our free will choices.

Nine Leaps of Faith
The god that most people believe exists requires at least nine separate leaps of faith:

1. Something supernatural can exist.
2. A supernatural being exists.
3. This being has consciousness.
4. This being is eternal.
5. This being created something out of nothing.
6. This being can interfere with this creation through miracles.
7. This being is all-knowing.
8. This being is all-powerful.
9. This being is all-loving.

Meaning
There is no “cosmic meaning” to life.  Evolution supplies us with drives to survive, have sex (reproduce), and care for others.  To accomplish this, we acquire knowledge and live in communities.  Learning and interacting with the world and others gives our lives meaning, without the need for belief in a god.

Ethics
Imagine a mother with two children, a girl and a boy.  Now imagine that the girl starts hitting the boy.  Does the mother reflexively say to her daughter: “Stop hitting your brother because it says not to in the [Torah/Bible/Koran/Vedas/etc.]?”  No.  At that point gods and religions are not what she is thinking about.

Instead, doesn’t the mother say something like: “Stop hitting your brother; you’re hurting him!” (consequences) or “Stop hitting your brother; how would you like it if someone hit you!” (empathy)

Consequences and empathy are the bases for natural ethics.  These lead to cooperation and compassion, which are found in many animals, including humans.

Science and Religion
Evidence-based science and faith-based religion are only compatible if religion either makes no testable claims, or the results of testable religious claims are not at odds with scientific findings.

For example: To say that a god created evolution is not a testable claim, though it at least accepts the evidence for evolution.  To say a god created the universe 6,000 years ago is a testable claim and is false.

God-of-the-Gaps
When some people don’t know or don’t like a natural explanation for something, they say, “God did it.”  The gap that “God” fills can be physical or emotional.

However, we are never told what a god is or exactly how a god does anything.  Thus “God” is not a useful answer because it provides us with no information.

Usually, people who believe a god exists and is providing them with answers dare not displease this god.  So they endow him with all good attributes and blame themselves for the problem of evil.

1. Science: The first and traditional area where god-of-the-gaps is used is science. So, for example, when humans didn’t know what caused lightning, they invented a “God of Lightning.”  Then we discovered electricity. In fact, god-of-the-gaps is the basis for creationism and the “Intelligent Design” movement: “This thing is so complicated that we can’t figure out how it could have evolved naturally, so ‘God did it.’ ”
2. Medicine: The human body has great healing powers of its own, which are not fully understood.  Yet when someone is healed for reasons we don’t understand, some people say “God did it.”  But if prayer and “divine intervention” were really reliable methods of healing, there would be no need for hospitals.  A true miracle, like an amputated limb growing back on a human, never happens.
3. Ethics: For emotional and practical reasons, we may want there to be a system of absolute ethics.  Since nature doesn’t provide this, some people claim that “God did it” through “revelation.” Yet even within Christianity there is no agreement on the ethics of such things as: drinking alcohol, masturbation, pre-marital sex, contraception, abortion, divorce, the role of women, gay rights, the death penalty, and voluntary euthanasia.
4. Meaning in Life: We have an emotional desire to have a “cosmic meaning” in life.  Since nature doesn’t provide one, some people invent a god to give them one.
5. Emotional Security: People naturally seek emotional security during uncertain or troubled times.  We’ve all heard the phrase “I had no where else to turn, so I turned to God.” God-belief may indeed have a placebo, calming effect, but it’s the belief that is responsible.  A god doesn’t really have to exist.
6. Afterlife: Our survival instincts make us want to live forever.  Nature doesn’t provide for this, so some people invent a god to give them an “afterlife.”

© 2010 August Berkshire

Download (PDF, 89.07KB)

Related posts:

1. The Seven C’s of Atheism
2. A “Fine-Tuned” Universe as Proof of a God?
3. Ethics & Unity in the Atheist/Humanist Movement

There are many people who believe that if one or more physics constants of the Universe had varied only slightly, they would have produced a universe incapable of supporting life.  For example, if the gravitational constant had been slightly greater, the Universe would have collapsed back in upon itself before any life had a chance to form.

Some religious people look at this supposedly “fine-tuned” Universe and claim it is proof that a god exists who did the fine-tuning.  Let us examine this claim.

God-of-the-Gaps
At heart, this is a god-of-the-gaps argument.  It says that if we can’t think of a probable natural way that conditions could have resulted in life in the Universe, then a supernatural “god” did it.  However, we don’t know what this god is, nor how it accomplishes anything.  Therefore, “god” is not a meaningful answer because it provides us with no information.

Religious people claim that we aren’t entitled to a “free lunch” regarding a natural explanation for life in the Universe.  But “god” is the ultimate unexplained “free lunch.”

The Universe
Most of the Universe is decidedly inhospitable to life.  Outer space is deadly to anything other than, perhaps, microbes – and the majority of planets, moons, and asteroids aren’t much better.

Judging by what we observe now, the Universe will continue expanding forever, creating a “big chill” effect.  Heat energy will be so dissipated that no life will be possible.  A person alive just before this happens won’t view things as so “miraculously fine-tuned” as some religious people do today.

Our Sun
While natural conditions are favorable for life on Earth now, this won’t be true in about five billion years.  At that point the Sun’s supply of hydrogen will run out and the Sun will expand and engulf the Earth, wiping out all life.  Even a billion years from now, all water will have boiled off the Earth, making life improbable, if not impossible.  Again, a person alive just before either of these events occurs won’t view things as so “miraculously fine-tuned” as some religious people do today.

The Earth
Apart from the Universe, some people claim the Earth itself is so fine-tuned for life (the proper distance from the Sun, the right kind of elements, etc.) that only a god could have established it.  This, of course, is the same god-of-the-gaps argument that we encountered with the “fine-tuned” Universe.

But instead of asking about the odds of life as we know it arising through natural processes on this particular planet (Earth), we should instead ask about the odds of life of any kind arising naturally on any planet.  It is estimated that there are 100 billion galaxies in the Universe (containing trillions of planets).  If only one planet per galaxy had the right conditions to produce some kind of life, that would still amount to 100 billion planets and at least 100 billion different species.

Limited Knowledge
The fined-tuned Universe argument for a god assumes that what we know about the Universe today is accurate.  But this is cutting edge physics and what we believe to be true today is far from certain.  Even now there is dispute among physicists as to how much these constants of the Universe can vary and still produce a universe capable of leading to life.

Multiple Universes
Extraordinary odds against life in one universe become a near certainty if there are many universes.  If many universes exist (sometimes called a “multiverse”) and each universe has its own random set of constants, then life will almost certainly arise in at least one of these universes.  (For example, roll a set of dice long enough and you will eventually get two sixes.)

While there is, as yet, no evidence for other universes, their existence is more plausible than the existence of a god.  After all, we know it’s possible for universes to exist – we live in one.  We have no evidence that it is possible for gods to exist.

A Fine-Tuned God?
Those who believe a “fine-tuned” Universe proves the existence of a god admit that there is some slight margin for variance in these physics constants of the Universe.  But what about the god they believe exists?  Could that god be anything other than exactly what it is?  If not, then there is zero margin for variance for that god.  So, as improbable as the existence of life in the Universe may seem, the existence of a god would be even more improbable.  It also begs the question: Who or what fine-tuned this god?

Conclusion
The track record of naturalistic science for answering questions about the natural world far exceeds the track record of supernatural “revelation.”  The existence of a god seems more improbable than life arising naturally on its own in the Universe.  “God” has not provided us with any answers and has instead raised more questions.

© 2010 August Berkshire

Download (PDF, 68.07KB)

Related posts:

1. Atheism 101
2. 34 Unconvincing Arguments for God

Ethics and Unity in the Atheist/Humanist Movement
by August Berkshire

Does being an atheist or a humanist automatically make a person ethical?  If we can admit there are some atheist people and groups that are unethical, small in number though they may be, how does this affect the unity we are trying to achieve?

Two of the greatest concerns, internally, of the atheist/humanist movement are ethics and unity.  Unfortunately, these are sometimes at odds with each other.  For the sake of ethics, it would be necessary to forgo total unity in our movement; unethical people or groups would be excluded.  Alternately, for the sake of total unity, it would be necessary to overlook major ethical lapses.

So which is the correct road to take?  I would argue that if we forgo ethics, then religion has already won, no matter how much unity we have.  Furthermore, if we do not place a priority on ethics, we loose our standing to critique the ethical lapses of religious people and groups without being hypocrites and losing credibility ourselves.  We must be consistent and avoid a double standard.

I have noticed that humanists have tended to put more emphasis on ethics and atheists have tended to put more emphasis on unity.  There are traditional and definitional reasons for this.  Atheism has been more concerned with critiquing religion and humanism has been more concerned with what kind of life we lead once we have dispensed with gods.

This is not to suggest that people who primarily identify as humanists aren’t sometimes unethical too.  The point is that most humanist groups make an explicit effort to address the issue of ethics, whereas many atheist groups have not reached that stage yet.

In addition to traditional and definitional reasons, I believe there is a further, evolutionary reason for this difference in emphasis between humanism/ethics and atheism/unity.  When threatened, a social species like humans often seeks safety in numbers.  Unity for survival is paramount; ethics are a luxury.

Historically, humanists have not felt attacked the way atheists have.  In fact, most people don’t even know what a “humanist” is, often mistaking it for a word that already has a positive connotation: “humane.”  This has allowed humanists the opportunity to contemplate issues beyond survival, such as how to live an ethical life.

In contrast, there has hardly been a time or place in the history of humanity when atheists have not been under attack.  This has caused some atheists to believe that the ends justify the means in fighting back against religion.  Ethics fall by the wayside in the fight for survival.

Is the solution, then, for us all to just call ourselves “humanists,” to get religion off our backs in order to give us a breather so we can better pursue ethics?  No, the word “atheist” cannot be avoided because it is an accurate description of who we are.

Because survival is paramount (often expressed as victimization by and anger towards religion), many atheists would rather shoot the messenger who points out unethical atheist behavior than examine the message.  While we are right to be concerned about unethical religious activity, should we not be equally upset by unethical activity within our own movement?

Tellingly, those who favor the inclusion of unethical people or groups in freethought coalitions will use words like “unity” or “censorship” to defend their position.  However, a word I have never heard them use is “ethical.”

One would think, from a marketing point of view at the very least, that atheists would care more about ethics than they do.  After all, it is the number one accusation made against us by religious people: That we can’t be good without god.

By embracing unethical atheist people and groups and bringing them into the fold, perhaps some people believe we can get them to improve their behavior.  I have not seen this route be successful.  Unity should be withheld until ethical behavior is achieved.  Unethical people and groups should be marginalized, not embraced.

Or, do some people believe that by enveloping an unethical person or group in a larger freethought group that we can cover it up?  How ethical is that?

To those who believe in total unity at all costs, I say that unethical behavior is too high a price to pay for unity.  Are we so naïve or desperate that we have to put up with unethical behavior?  I hope not.

The vast majority of all atheists and humanists lead ethical lives.  And, since atheism and humanism are increasing, this demonstrates that an ethical approach to atheism/humanism works.  So, not only can we support ethics above total unity because it is the right thing to do, we can relax and do so because it is also the practical thing to do.

© 2009 August Berkshire

This essay was published in the January-March 2010 issue of Secular Nation magazine.

Related posts:

1. “The Humanity of Atheism”; Minneapolis, MN
2. Guest Speaker at Humanists of Minnesota; Minneapolis, MN
3. Speaking at Midwest Humanist Conference (Lincoln, NE)

Nevertheless, in case you were wondering, here are the plans some of us have for December.

The cards we will be purchasing will not say “Merry Christmas” (or “Happy Hanukah” or “Happy Eid”) but rather “Season’s Greetings.”

After all, the original “reason for the season” is the winter solstice, which has long been appropriated by religious people to celebrate the birth or rebirth of their sun/savior gods.  Nowadays, with religion in decline, the reason for the season is becoming merely a time for festivities.  What’s wrong with that?

The trees that many of us will have in our homes will have colorful lights, originally symbolic of the post-solstice lengthening of days, but now just a pretty sight.

Of course, we will not have angels on top of our trees.  We know this will make us unpatriotic as, in this economy, it is likely to lead the treetop-angel-making industry to seek a federal bailout.

The meals we will share will not have prayers said over them, but we will give thanks to those who provided them and to our families and friends.

The songs we sing will be secular – “Jingle Bells,” etc.  But, fear not: Atheists are just as likely to sing them out of tune as religious people, though we will derive no less joy.

And jolly old Santa Claus?  Well, the disappearance of milk and cookies left out for him and the appearance of wrapped presents are evidence in the minds of many that he exists.  We’ll relax our skeptical standards for a day and leave Santa’s existence up to each person’s imagination.

© 2008 August Berkshire. This essay was published in the [Minneapolis] Star Tribune on November 23, 2008.

Related posts:

1. Performing skit at Winter Solstice Party; St. Louis Park, MN
2. Inter-Non-Faith Dialogue, Part 1
3. American Family Association is keeping a list, and checking it twice

Cast:

Noah Waye, President of Universal Atheists
Mae Bea Something, President of Unitarian Universalists
Johnny [Janey] B. Goode, President of Universal Humanists
Ida Know, President of Universal Agnostics
Sonny Demeanor, President of Universal Brights

Set & Props:

A long table behind which are four chairs, with room for a fifth chair on the end, which is currently slightly off to the side.  Or, five microphone stands with music stands in front of them to hold scripts.  (If this many microphones are not available, two or more characters can share one mic.  Preferably the Atheist would not be sharing a mic with anyone.)

Five signs or t-shirts saying: “Atheist”; “Humanist”; “Unitarian Universalist” or “UU”; “Agnostic” or “?”; and “Bright” or a picture of a light bulb.  The first four descriptions of people, as well as the people themselves, are visible as the play opens.  The last description (Bright) is added after that character enters.  If signs are used, they may be placards on the table or hung in front of the microphone stands.

Scene:

The skit opens with the Atheist, Humanist, Unitarian Universalist, and Agnostic on stage.

Atheist:  Welcome to the second annual Inter-Non-Faith Dialogue.  My name is Noah Waye and I am the president of the Universal Atheists.  This year, in addition to an atheist, a humanist, and a Unitarian Universalist, we haven’t forgotten to include an agnostic… though I don’t know why…  Before we begin, it’s become our custom, since last year, to call on the president of the Unitarian Universalists, Mae Bea Something, to give us an opening invocation.

UU:  Thank you, Noah.  Oh, God, whom some of us call “nature,” and some of us call “the universal force,” and some of us call “the great unknown,” and some of us call…

Atheist: (interrupting)  Yes, we get the point.  Please move on.

UU: (slightly startled and recollecting herself)  Oh, God, teach us to have faith in your non-existence…

Atheist: (interrupting again)  That’s not exactly how it works…

UU: (unruffled this time, and slightly annoyed)  We ask this is the name of that which has no name…

Atheist: Okay, enough! (takes an exasperated breath).  And now I’d like to introduce the president of the Universal Humanists, Johnny B. Goode.

Humanist: Thank you, Noah.  I’d like to say how much I appreciate all the human effort that has gone into setting up tonight’s program.  Why, without humans…

Atheist: Yes… Well… thank you, Johnny.  And finally I’d like to introduce the president of the Universal Agnostics.  What was your name again?

Agnostic:  Ida Know.

Atheist:  Well, I don’t know either, that’s why I’m asking…

Agnostic:  No, it’s IDA… KNOW.

UU:  Did you every play third base in baseball?

Agnostic:  IDA KNOW!

Humanist:  You’d think that’s something a person wouldn’t forget…

Agnostic:  My name is IDA: I-D-A, KNOW: K-N-O-W…

UU:  Oh.  I’m sorry, Ida.  Our apologies.  I guess we can blame your name on your parents.  What were their names?

Agnostic:  My father is African.  His name is Dontwanna Know.  And my mother is Swedish.  Her name is Intha Know.

Humanist: (sympathetically)  Sounds like you had a very confused upbringing…

Agnostic: (shrugging it off; nonchalantly)  Oh, I don’t know…

Bright: (rushing in from off stage)  Wait a minute, aren’t you forgetting someone?!

Atheist:  Who are you?

Bright:  I’m Sonny Demeanor and I’m the President of the Universal Brights.

UU:  But it isn’t universally bright, except at the North or South Pole, and only then for six months a year…

Humanist:  Or in outer space!…

Bright:  No, no, no!  The Universal Brights… the Bright Movement…

Agnostic:  Does that have anything to do with florescent light bulbs?

Bright:  Brights!  We’re people who don’t believe in the supernatural…

UU:  So you’re an atheist!

Bright: (like a schoolyard taunt)  Look who’s talking!  You’re an atheist too, so there!

UU:  Am not!

Bright:  Are too!

UU:  Not all the time!  Sometimes I might not be!

Agnostic: (Interrupting, out of the blue, perhaps as if talking loudly to himself)  I don’t know…

Atheist:  Alright, whatever…  I think we can all agree… at least sometimes… or on some days of the week… that the supernatural doesn’t exist.

Bright:  Yes!

UU:  It depends if you mean that literally, figuratively, metaphorically, or symbolically…

Humanist:  I think “week” is a very Euro-centric measure of time…

Atheist: (exasperated)  What does that have to do with the existence of gods?!

Bright: (helpfully, insightfully)  Some of the days of the week are named after gods.

Agnostic: So if the days of the week exist, does that mean those gods exist too?

UU: It’s a good thing this meeting isn’t being held on Thor’s Day.

Humanist: What have you got against Thor?  Oh, sure, his lightning bolts would do some damage from time to time, but…

Atheist: You’re missing the point – Thor doesn’t even exist!

Agnostic: (genuinely puzzled)  How do you know?

Bright: (in a know-it-all fashion)  Because lightning is caused by electricity…

Humanist: (philosophically)  But do we really know what electricity is?

UU: (even more deeply philosophical)  For that matter, do we really know what reality is?

Atheist: I’m getting really tired of this!  Let’s get back on track here.  A lot of times at conferences like these they issue a statement at the end that everyone agrees with…

Humanist: Sounds good to me!

Bright: Me too!

UU: Me too!

Agnostic: I think so!

Atheist: (relieved)  You know, that’s the first thing we’ve agreed on all day.

Bright: You’re right!

(The next series of events happens while the Atheist looks on bewildered, not believing what he’s hearing.)

UU: So our statement will be: “We all agree that conferences like this usually produce a statement we can all agree with.”

Humanist: I second that motion!

Bright: All in favor?

(Agnostic begins rubbing his eye, as if there’s something caught in it.)

UU: Aye!

Bright: Aye!

Agnostic: Eye…

Humanist: I think “aye” [“I”] sounds a little too selfish.  Why don’t we all vote by saying “you”?

Agnostic (stops rubbing his eye, looking bewildered)  You?

UU: You!

Bright: You!

Humanist: You!

Atheist: You – have got to be kidding.  (turning to audience) And there you have it.  A rare moment of agreement in the Non-Faith Community… I think…  Thank you all for coming here today.  Join us again next year for our third annual Inter-Non-Faith Dialogue.

—–

“Woden’s Day” may be substituted for “Thor’s Day” if the skit is performed on a Thursday.

This skit was first performed on December 20, 2009 at the Freethought Follies in St. Louis Park, Minnesota, hosted by the Humanists of Minnesota and Minnesota Atheists.

© 2008-2009 August Berkshire

Related posts:

1. Inter-Non-Faith Dialogue, Part 1
2. “The Humanity of Atheism”; Minneapolis, MN
3. “A Friendly Dialogue Between a Christian and an Atheist”; Coon Rapids, MN

First performed at the Minnesota Atheists and the Humanists of Minnesota Winter Solstice Party on December 21, 2008

Cast:
Noah Waye, President of Universal Atheists
Mae Bea Something, President of the Unitarian Universalists
Johnny [or Janey] B. Goode, President of the Universal Humanists
Ida Know, President of Universal Agnostics

Set & Props:
A long table behind which are three chairs, with room for a fourth chair on the end, which is currently slightly off to the side.  Or, four microphone stands with music stands in front of them to hold scripts.

Four signs or t-shirts saying: “Atheist”; “Humanist”; “Unitarian Universalist” or “UU”; and “Agnostic” or “?”  The first three descriptions of people, as well as the people themselves, are visible as the play opens.  The last description (Agnostic) is added after that character enters.  If signs are used, they may be placards on the table or hung in front of the microphone stands.

Scene:
The skit opens with the Atheist, Humanist, and Unitarian Universalist on stage.

Atheist: Good evening.  My name is Noah Waye, President of Universal Atheists.  We are proud to host this first annual Inter-Non-Faith Dialogue among atheists, humanists, and Unitarian Universalists.  It is my deep, abiding belief that we are united in our worship of nothing.  Before we begin, I’d like to call upon the President of the Unitarian Universalists, Mae Bea Something, to give us an opening invocation.

UU: Thank you, Noah.  “Oh God, whom I interpret broadly, and whom I seriously doubt exists, grant us the strength to follow the lead of science, which, on a daily basis, closes the gaps in our knowledge that we historically call upon you to explain.  Teach us, oh God, that we can get along just fine without you.”

Atheist: (a little bewildered)  Uh, thank you, Mae Bea…  And now I’d like to introduce the other member of tonight’s panel discussion, the President of the Universal Humanists, Johnny B. Goode.

Humanist: Thank you, Noah.  I’d like to say how much I appreciate all the human effort that has gone into setting up tonight’s program.  Why, without humans…

Atheist: Yes…  Well… thank you, Johnny, and Mae Bea, for being here with us.

Agnostic: (bursting in from off stage)  Excuse me!  Haven’t you forgotten someone in this Dialogue?  I’m Ida Know, President of Universal Agnostics.

Atheist: Why should we include you?

Agnostic: (pause) I don’t know.

Atheist: Oh, very well, you can stay.

Agnostic produces a fourth sign or shows front of t-shirt – the word “Agnostic” or a question mark – grabs the fourth seat and brings it over and sits down, or takes a place at the fourth microphone stand.

Atheist: Let’s begin.  The first question we should address is whether or not God exists.  I’ll start.  There is absolutely, positively no way that a god exists.  Or at least I lack a belief in one.

UU: But doesn’t that depend upon how you define the term “God”?  My belief in God is ambiguous…

Humanist: Since humans are the measure of all things, I guess you could say that makes us “gods,” though I wouldn’t say that.

Agnostic: I don’t know…

Atheist: (interrupting)  Oh, for the love of…  Okay, let’s define this god as an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, invisible, undetectable being…

UU: How many gods are there?  We Unitarians only believe in one god – that’s what UNI-tarianism means – if we believe in any gods at all… which many of us don’t… although I suppose that depends upon how you define God…

Atheist: Which is what I am trying to do!  Okay, okay, let’s stipulate that there is only one of these supposed beings…

Agnostic: How do you know?

Atheist: I don’t know, I’m just saying…

Humanist: People, people, can’t we all just get along?

Atheist: Look… let’s start simple.  How about the god Apollo, the one who supposedly rides a flaming chariot across the sky, which we now call the sun.  Does anyone believe he exists?

UU: I would say that he exists symbolically, but not in reality…

Humanist: I think you’d have to admit that if he did exist, he would be a pretty nice guy.  I mean, getting up at the crack of dawn every day… never a day off for vacation…

Agnostic: (ponderingly) I don’t know…

Atheist: Oh, for Apollo’s sake!  All right – forget about gods!  How about separation of state and church?  We atheists support that.  How about the rest of you?

UU: Yes!

Humanist: Yes!

Agnostic: I think I do!

Humanist: So, does this mean that we finally see eye-to-eye?

Atheist: Absolutely.

UU: It depends upon how you define “eye-to-eye”: literally, figuratively, metaphorically, or symbolically…

Agnostic: I don’t know.

Atheist: (to audience)  Well, thank you all for coming here today.  You’re all invited back next year for our second annual Inter-Non-Faith Dialogue, where we can continue our fruitful discussion…

© 2007-2009 August Berkshire.  First performed at the Minnesota Atheists and the Humanists of Minnesota Winter Solstice Party on December 21, 2008 and the Humanists of Minnesota Winter Solstice Party on December 21, 2008.

Related posts:

1. Inter-Non-Faith Dialogue, Part 2
2. “A Friendly Dialogue Between a Christian and an Atheist”; Coon Rapids, MN
3. Performing skit at Winter Solstice Party; St. Louis Park, MN

Conservative
Atheism is a conservative position. We accept statements only so far as there is reason and/or evidence to back them up.  Anything else is speculation.  We make no leaps of faith.  If there should some day be a compelling reason or piece of evidence for a god, then we would acknowledge it and change our views.

Clarity
An atheist possesses clarity in his or her thinking processes.  We are able to identify those things for which we have evidence and separate them from other things that are merely wishful thinking.

Consistent
An atheist is also consistent.  We apply our skepticism equally to all supernatural claims.  We do not say, “All prophets, saviors, or gods are false – except ours.”  We make no exceptions or special pleadings.

Contradiction-free
Another benefit of atheism is that it is contradiction-free.  We don’t have to try to reconcile an all-loving, all-seeing, all-powerful god with the existence of evil.  We don’t have to define love exactly the opposite of how we normally define it in order to make it applicable to a god.  We don’t have to claim that a poor supernatural designer is intelligent.

Courage
An atheist possesses courage. It is natural for people to have a healthy survival instinct.  However, some people have such a fear of death that they feel compelled to believe in an afterlife to alleviate those fears.  It takes intellectual and emotional courage to abandon belief in an afterlife because there is no evidence for it (and compelling evidence against it).  It also takes intellectual and emotional courage to abandon one’s belief in a cosmic, supernatural “protector” and realize that, as far as we know, we are alone in our universe and must therefore help each other as best we can.

Consequences
There are certain consequences that naturally follow from being an atheist.  Since there are no gods to help us, we must rely on ourselves and each other.  Since there is no afterlife, it becomes more important to improve life on Earth.

Conclusion
One of the arguments of Pascal’s Wager is that a person loses nothing by believing in a god.  This is not true. Accepting Pascal’s Wager means saying that we are willing to abandon reason and evidence as our guides to living, and instead make a leap of faith to… where?

It’s true that by converting (or deconverting) from theism to atheism a person will lose his or her sense of divine specialness, cosmic meaning in life, and any hope of an afterlife.  But you can’t lose what you never really had.

The reality of atheism far outweighs the dream of religion.  There is an excitement and beauty to perceiving the world as it really is, and not as an illusion.

© 2008-2010 August Berkshire

Download (PDF, 58.58KB)

Related posts:

1. Atheism 101
2. Quotes by August Berkshire
3. 34 Unconvincing Arguments for God

Introduction – Atheism – the lack of belief in gods – is based upon a lack of evidence for gods, lack of a reason to believe in gods, and difficulties and contradictions that some god ideas lead to.

Nevertheless, atheism is a tentative state, subject to change if compelling theistic arguments are presented.

Following are some of the arguments that atheists have considered, along with some of the reasons these arguments have been rejected.

(1) God-of-the-Gaps (God as a “free lunch”) – Almost every “proof” for the existence of gods relies, at least in part, on a god-of-the gaps argument. This argument says that if we don’t know the answer to something, then “God did it.” “God” gets to win by default, without any positive evidence. But is saying “God did it” really an answer?

Intelligent design, god-advocate William Dembski has authored a book entitled No Free Lunch. However, “God” is the ultimate “free lunch.” Consider the following:

We don’t know what gods are composed of.

We don’t know what gods’ attributes are.

We don’t know how many gods there are.

We don’t know where gods are.

We don’t know where gods come from or, alternately, how it is possible for them to always exist.

We don’t know what mechanisms gods use to create or change anything.

We don’t know what the “supernatural” is, nor how it is capable of interacting with the natural world.

In other words, we know absolutely nothing about gods – yet at least one god is often given credit for many things. Thus, to say “God did it” is to answer a question with a question. It provides no information and only makes the original question more complex.

The god-of-the-gaps argument says that not only do we not have a naturalistic answer today, but we will never discover a naturalistic answer in the future because no naturalistic answer is possible. Thus, to rebut a god-of-the-gaps argument, we only have to show that a naturalistic answer is possible.

For example: We open the door to a room and observe a cat sleeping in a corner. We close the door, then open it again five minutes later. We observe that the cat is now sleeping in another corner. One person says “God did it by levitating the sleeping cat” (without offering any proof). Another person says “It’s quite possible that the cat woke up, wandered over to the other corner, and fell asleep again.” Thus, although no one saw what actually happened, the god-of-the-gaps argument has been rendered implausible by a possible naturalistic explanation.

(2) Leaps of Faith – The fact is, no one even knows if it’s possible for gods to exist. Just because we can imagine something doesn’t mean it’s possible. For example, we can all imagine ourselves walking through a solid wall, but that doesn’t mean it’s possible. So, just because we can imagine a god, doesn’t mean its existence is actually possible.

Because there is no direct proof for the existence of any gods, a typical believer must make at least nine leaps of faith to arrive at the god they believe in. These are separate leaps of faith because one leap does not imply the next leap.

The first leap of faith is that a supernatural realm even exists.

Second, that beings of some sort exist in this realm.

Third, that these beings have consciousness.

Fourth, that at least one of these beings is eternal.

Fifth, that this being is capable of creating something from nothing.

Sixth, that this being is capable of interfering with the universe after it is created (i.e. miracles).

Seventh, eighth, and ninth, that this being is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-loving.

If people want to believe in a god more specific to a particular religion, then some additional leaps of faith are necessary.

So, when we speak about gods, we have absolutely no idea what we’re talking about (see unconvincing argument #1), and we have to make at least nine leaps of faith to get to the god most people believe in.

(3) Holy Books – Just because something is written down does not make it true. This goes for the Bible, the Qur’an, and any other holy book. It is circular reasoning to try to prove the god of a holy book exists by using the holy book itself as “evidence.”

People who believe the holy book of one religion usually disbelieve the holy books of other religions.

(4) The Argument from Historical Settings – This argument states that because historical people and places are mentioned in ancient stories, that everything else about those stories, including descriptions of supernatural events, must be true. By this argument, everything written in the Iliad, including the intervention of the ancient Greek gods, must be true.

(5) “Revelations” of Others – All religions claim to be revealed, usually through people called “prophets.” But how can we know that a “revelation” is actually a “message from a god” and not a hallucination?

A revelation is a personal experience. Even if a revelation really did come from a god, there is no way we could prove it.

People of one religion usually disbelieve the revelations of other religions. These revelations often contradict each other, so what basis do we have for deciding which are the “true revelations”?

(6) “Revelations” of One’s Own (Personal Testimony,
Feelings, “Open Heart”) – This is when you are personally having the revelation or feeling that a god exists. Though you may be sincere, and even if a god really does exist, a feeling is not proof, either for you or for someone else.

It will do no good to ask atheists to “open our hearts and accept Jesus” (or any other deity). If we were to set aside our skepticism, we might indeed have an inspirational experience. But this would be an emotional experience and we’d have no way to verify if a god was really speaking to us or if we were just hallucinating.

Many atheists have stories of how wonderful it felt to lose their belief in gods. As with religion, this is not proof that atheism is true.

(7) Most People Believe in God – It’s true that throughout history, most people have believed in at least one god. But mere popularity doesn’t make something true. (Most people used to mistakenly believe that the Earth was the center of the universe.)

The number of atheists in the world is currently increasing. We can imagine a day when most people are atheists. (In fact, most of the top scientists in the U.S. already are atheists.) However, as with religion, the popularity of atheism will not be able to be used as proof of its truth.

Even today, it is probable that in England and France atheists outnumber theists. Does this mean that God exists everywhere except in those two countries?

(8) Evolution Would Not Favor a False Belief – Would evolution reward a species incapable of perceiving reality? Would evolution reward a species that hallucinated? If not, then a god must exist, according to this argument.

However, evolution does not reward what is true. Evolution rewards that which is useful.

No one can doubt that religion and god-belief have sometimes been useful. “God” can be employed like Santa Claus, to keep people behaving well in order to earn a reward. “God” can also be used to justify horrible behavior that benefits your group, such as Islamic suicide bombings or the Christian Crusades. “God” can reduce your fear of death.

Nevertheless, in an age of nuclear weapons, the dangers of god belief far outweigh its usefulness.

(9) The “God Part” of the Brain – Some religious people argue that a god must exist, or why else would we have a part of our brain that can “recognize” a god? What use would that part of our brain be otherwise?

However, imagination is important for us to be able to predict the future, and thus aids in our survival. We can imagine all kinds of things that aren’t true. It is a byproduct of being able to imagine things that might be true.

As a matter of fact, scientists have begun to study why some people have religious beliefs and others don’t, from a biological perspective. They have identified certain naturally occurring chemicals in our brains that can give us religious experiences. For example, the brain chemical dopamine increases the likelihood that we will “see” patterns where there are none.

In studies of religion and the brain, a new field called neurotheology, they have identified the temporal lobe as a place in the brain that can generate religious experiences.

Another part of the brain, which regulates a person’s sense of “self,” can be consciously shut down during meditation, giving the meditator (who loses his or her sense of personal boundaries) a feeling of “oneness” with the universe.

(10) Ancient “Miracles” & Resurrection Stories – Many religions have miracle stories. And, just as people who believe in one religion are usually skeptical towards miracle stories of other religions, atheists are skeptical toward all miracle stories.

Extraordinary events can become exaggerated and grow into miraculous legends. Good magicians can perform acts that seem like miracles. Things can be mismeasured and misinterpreted. Many things that seemed like “miracles” in the ancient world can be explained with modern knowledge.

Regarding resurrections, atheists will not find a story of someone resurrecting from the dead to be convincing. There are many such legends in ancient literature and, again, most religious people reject the resurrection stories of other religions.

Many religions reports that their god(s) performed obvious, spectacular miracles thousands of years ago. Why have these miracles stopped? Is it because the gods have become shy? Or is it because science started?

(11) Modern Medical “Miracles” & Resurrection Stories – Modern medical “miracles” are a good example of “god-of-the-gaps.” A person experiences a cure for a disease that science can’t explain. Therefore, “God did it.” God never has to prove himself in these arguments. It is always assumed that he gets to win by default.

But this argument assumes we know everything about the human body, so that a natural explanation is impossible. But the fact is, we don’t have complete medical knowledge. Why don’t we ever see something that would be a true miracle, like an amputated arm instantaneously regenerating?

Several studies of prayer, where the patients didn’t know whether or not they were being prayed for, including a study by the Mayo Clinic, have shown prayer to have no effect on healing.

(This raises the question of why we would have to beg an all-powerful, all-loving god to be healed in the first place. It seems ironic, to say the least, to pray to a loving god to be cured from diseases and the effects of natural disasters that he himself created. It also raises the Problem of Evil: If God is all-powerful and all-loving, why does evil exist in the first place?)

Modern resurrection stories always seem to occur in Third World countries under unscientific conditions. However, there have been thousands of people in modern hospitals hooked up to machines that verified their deaths when they died. Why didn’t any of them ever resurrect?

(12) “Heaven” (Fear of Death) – Atheists don’t like the fact that we’re all going to die any more than religious people do. However, this fear does not prove there is an afterlife – only that we wish there was an afterlife. But wishing doesn’t make it so.

There is no evidence for a god, no evidence that he created any place for us to go after we die, no explanation as to exactly what that place is composed of, nor where it is, nor how a god created it from nothing.

There is no evidence for a soul, no description of what a soul is composed of, and no explanation of how a non-material soul evolved in a material body, or, alternately, no explanation of how or when a god zaps a soul into a body.

If a fertilized human egg has a soul, what happens if that egg splits in two to form identical twins? Does each twin have half a soul? Or did the original fertilized egg have two souls?

What about when the opposite happens, when two fertilized eggs fuse to form one human being, creating what is known as a chimera? Does that person have two souls? Or did each original fertilized egg have only half a soul?

If a one-week-old baby dies, what kind of thoughts will it have in an afterlife? The thoughts of a one-week-old, which are zero? The thoughts of an adult? If so, how will that happen? Where will those thoughts come from and what will they be?

There is no reason to believe our consciousness survives the death of our brains. The mind is not something separate from the body.

For example, we know the chemicals responsible for the feeling of love. Drugs can alter our mood, and thus change our thoughts. Physical damage to our brains can change our personalities, and our thoughts. And learning a new skill, which involves thinking, can physically change the structure of our brains.

Some people get Alzheimer’s disease at the end of their lives. The irreversible damage to their brains can be detected by brain scans. These people lose their ability to think, yet they are still alive. How, one second after these people die, does their thinking return (in a “soul”)?

If people had to choose between a god and an afterlife, most people would choose the afterlife and forget about God. They only choose god belief because it’s the only way they know of to fulfill their desire for an afterlife. [Thanks to Edward Tabash for this point.]

(13) Fear of Hell – The idea of hell strikes atheists as a scam – an attempt to get people to believe through fear what they cannot believe through reason and evidence.

The only way to approach this “logically” is to find the religion that punishes you the worst for disbelief, and then believe that religion. Okay, you will have saved yourself from the worst punishment that exists – if that religion is the “true” religion.

But if that religion (with its punishment) is not the true religion – if the religion that has the second or third worst punishment for disbelief is the true religion – then you have saved yourself nothing.

So, which religion’s hell is the true hell? Without evidence, we can never know.

Even within Christianity there are three different versions of hell. There is the traditional version, where your “soul” burns forever. A second version says that eternal punishment is too cruel for a loving god, so your “soul” is burnt out of existence.

And a third version says that hell is not a physical place but the condition of being forever separated from God. But atheists are already separated from God and are having a good time, so they fail to see how this is a punishment. And, how can a person be separated from God when God is supposedly everywhere?

(14) “Pascal’s Wager” / Faith – In short, Pascal’s Wager states that we have everything to gain (an eternity in heaven) and nothing to lose by believing in a god. On the other hand, disbelief can lead to a loss of heaven (i.e. hell).

We’ve already noted that heaven is wishful thinking and that hell is a scam, so let’s address the issue of faith.

Pascal’s Wager assumes a person can will himself or herself into having faith. This is simply not the case, at least not for an atheist. So atheists would have to pretend to believe. But according to most definitions of God, wouldn’t God know we were lying to hedge our bets? Would a god reward this?

Part of Pascal’s Wager states that you “lose nothing” by believing. But an atheist would disagree. By believing under these conditions, you’re acknowledging that you’re willing to accept some things on faith. In other words, you’re saying you’re willing to abandon evidence as your standard for judging reality. Faith doesn’t sound so appealing when it’s phrased that way, does it?

(15) Blaming the Victim – Many religions punish people for disbelief. However, belief requires faith, and some people, such as atheists, are incapable of faith. Their minds are only receptive to evidence. Therefore, are atheists to be blamed for not believing when “God” provides insufficient evidence?

(16) The End of the World – Like the concept of hell, this strikes atheists as a scare tactic to get people to believe through fear what they can’t believe through reason and evidence. There have been predictions that the world was going to end for centuries now. The question you might want to ask yourselves, if you’re basing your religious beliefs on this, is how long you’re willing to wait – what amount of time will convince you that the world is not going to end?

(17) Difficulties of Religion – It has sometimes been argued that because certain religious practices are difficult to follow, nobody would do them if a god didn’t exist. However, it is the belief in the existence of a god that is motivating people. A god doesn’t really have to exist for this to happen.

Difficulties can serve as an initiation rite of passage into being counted one of the “select few.” After all, if just anybody could be “saved,” there might be no point in having a religion.

Finally, the reward for obedience promised by most religions – a heaven – far outweighs any difficulties religion imposes.

(18) The Argument from Martyrdom – It has been argued that no one would die for a lie. This overlooks the fact that people can be intentionally or unintentionally fooled into believing a religion is true.

Most religious groups that promote martyrdom promise a great reward in “heaven,” so followers don’t perceive the loss of their lives as a great sacrifice.

Does the fact that the 9/11 bombers were willing to die for their faith make Islam true? What about cults like Heaven’s Gate, where followers committed suicide in 1997 believing their “souls” were going to a space ship carrying Jesus on the far side of a comet?

(19) The Argument from Embarrassment – Some religious people argue that because their holy book contains passages that are embarrassing to their faith, that those passages – and the accompanying descriptions of supernatural events – must be true or they wouldn’t have been included in the book.

A classic example of this argument is the Biblical description of the disciples’ cowardice after Jesus’ arrest. Yet in this case, as in others, embarrassing moments can be included in a fictional story to heighten dramatic tension and make the eventual triumph of the hero of the story that much greater. [Thanks to Robert M. Price for this point.]

(20) False Dichotomies – This is being presented with a false “either/or” proposition, where you’re only given two alternatives when, in fact, there are more possibilities.

Here’s one that many Christians are familiar with: “Either Jesus was insane or he was god. Since Jesus said some wise things, he wasn’t insane. Therefore, he must be God, like he said he was.” But those are not the only two possibilities.

A third option is that, yes, it is possible to say some wise things and be deluded that you are a god.

A fourth possibility is that Jesus didn’t say everything that is attributed to him in the Bible. Maybe he didn’t actually say all those wise things, but the writers of the Bible said he did. Or maybe he never claimed to be God, but the writers turned him into a god after he died.

A fifth possibility is that Jesus is a fictional character and so everything was invented by the authors.

(21) Meaning in Life – This is the idea that, without belief in a god, life would be meaningless. Even if this were true, it would only prove we wanted a god to exist to give meaning to our lives, not that a god actually does exist. But the very fact that atheists can find meaning in their lives without a belief in a god shows that god belief is not necessary.

(22) “God is Intangible, Like Love” – Love is not intangible. We can define love both as a type of feeling and as demonstrated by certain types of actions.

Unlike “God,” love is a physical thing. We know the chemicals responsible for the feeling of love.

Also, love depends upon brain structure. A person with a lobotomy or other type of brain damage may lose the ability to feel love.

Furthermore, if love were not physical, it would not be confined to our physical brains. We would expect to be able to detect an entity or force called “love” floating around in the air.

(23) Morality/Ethics – This is the idea that without a god we’d have no basis for morality. However, a secular moral code existed before the Bible: the Code of Hammurabi.

In Plato’s dialogue called Euthyphro, Socrates asks a man named Euthyphro whether something is good because God says it is, or does God announce something to be good because it has intrinsic goodness?

If something is good because God says it is, then God might change his mind about what is good. Thus, there would be no absolute morality.

If God merely announces something to be good because it has intrinsic goodness, then we might be able to discover this intrinsic goodness ourselves, without the need for god belief.

Christians can’t even agree among themselves what’s moral when it comes to things like masturbation, premarital sex, homosexuality, divorce, contraception, abortion, war, embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia, and the death penalty.

Christians reject some of the moral laws found in the Bible, such as killing disobedient children or people who work on the Sabbath. Therefore, Christians must be applying their own ethical standards from outside the Bible to be able to recognize that these commandments in the Bible are unethical. [Thanks to Dan Barker for this point.]

In fact, most religious people ignore the bad ethics in their holy books and concentrate on the good advice. In other words, theists pick and choose their ethics just like atheists do.

Other animals exhibit kindness toward one another and a sense of justice. We have found the part of our brains responsible for feelings of sympathy and empathy – “mirror neurons” – which serve as the foundation for much of our ethics.

Morality is something that evolved from us being social animals. It’s based on the selfish advantage we get from cooperation, and on consequences. Helping one another is a selfish act that has evolutionary rewards. (See also Argument 25, against the existence of altruism.)

We also judge actions by their consequences, through trial and error. The best formula we have come up with is to allow the maximum amount of freedom that does not harm another person or impinge on that person’s freedom. This creates the greatest amount of happiness and prosperity in society, which benefits the greatest amount of people (the greatest good for the greatest number). This view includes the protection of minority rights, since in some way we are each a minority.

Since there is no evidence for any gods, it follows that any moral belief can be attributed to a god. So, rather than being a certain guide, religion can be used to justify any behavior. One simply has to say “God told me to do it.” The best way to refute this reasoning is to discard the idea of gods altogether.

Even if a god doesn’t exist, some people think that a belief in a god is useful to get people to behave – kind of like an invisible policeman, or, in the words of President George W. Bush: “(God) is constantly searching our hearts and minds. He’s kind of like Santa Claus. He knows if you’ve been good or if you’ve been bad.” [April 8, 2007 (Easter), Army post, Fort Hood, Texas.] Do we really want to make this the basis for our ethics?

Any decent ethical system does not need the supernatural to justify it. However, belief in the supernatural has been used to justify many unethical acts, such as the Inquisition, the Salem Witch trials, gay-bashing, and 9/11.

(24) The Argument from Goodness/Beauty – Some religious people argue that without a god there would be no goodness and/or beauty in the world. However, goodness and beauty are defined in human terms.

If the Earth’s environment had been so nasty that it was impossible for life to evolve, then we wouldn’t be here to ponder this question. So, obviously, at least some things about the Earth’s environment are life-affirming, and we are naturally drawn to these things – our survival depends upon it.

As for the beauty of art: we are naturally drawn to lifeaffirming images, shapes, and colors. However, there are many examples of art, such as the paintings of the Cubists and the Surrealists, that are loved by some people and hated by others.

(25) Altruism – People sometimes say that without a god there would be no altruism, that evolution only rewards selfish behavior.

However, it can be argued that there is no such thing as altruism, that people always do what they want to do. If they are only faced with bad choices, then people choose the thing they hate the least.

Our choices are based on what gives us (our genes) the best advantage for survival, including raising our reputation in society.

“Altruism” towards family members benefits people who share our genes. “Altruism” towards friends benefits people who may someday return the favor.

Even “altruism” towards strangers has a basis in evolution. This behavior first evolved in small tribes, where everyone knew each other and a good reputation enhanced one’s survival. It is now hard-wired in our brains as a general mode of conduct. [Thanks to Richard Dawkins for this point.]

(26) Free Will – Some people argue that without a god there would be no free will, that we would live in a deterministic universe of cause and effect and that we would be mere “robots.”

Actually, there is far less free will than most people think there is. Our conditioning (our biological desire to survive and prosper, combined with our experiences) make certain “choices” far more likely than others. How else can we explain our ability, in many cases, to predict human behavior?

Experiments have shown that our brain makes a “decision” to take action before we become conscious of it!

Some believe that the only free will we have is to exercise a conscious veto over actions suggested by our thoughts.

Most atheists have no problem admitting that free will may be an illusion.

This issue also brings up a conundrum: If a god who created us knows the future, how can we have free will?

In the end, if we are enjoying our lives, does it matter if free will is real or an illusion? Isn’t it only our ego – our healthy self-esteem that is beneficial for survival – that has been conditioned to believe that real free will is somehow better than imaginary free will?

(27) A Perfect Being Must Necessarily Exist – This is known as the ontological argument for God, first developed almost 1,000 years ago by Anselm.

We are asked to imagine the greatest or most perfect being possible. For most people, this is their conception of a god. Then it is pointed out that it is greater or more perfect for something to exist rather than not to exist. Therefore, this being (God) must necessarily exist.

But this argument does not address the question of whether it is possible for a perfect being to exist. It also means that our imagination can will things into existence. Not everything we can imagine is possible.

Let’s apply this logic to a different subject. Imagine a perfect skyscraper. It would remain undamaged if terrorists flew planes into it. Yet no skyscraper can withstand such an assault without at least some damage. But that violates our premise that the skyscraper must be perfect. Therefore, such an indestructible skyscraper must exist.

(28) Why is there Something Rather than Nothing? – This argument assumes that, without a god, we wouldn’t expect anything to exist. However, we have no idea of the statistical probability of Something existing rather than Nothing.

According to physics and astronomy professor Victor Stenger, symmetrical systems tend to be unstable. They tend to decay into less symmetrical systems. Now, Nothing – the lack of anything – is perfectly symmetrical, and thus highly unstable. Therefore, Something is more stable than Nothing. Thus we would expect there to be Something rather than Nothing.

We might just as reasonably ask: “Why is there a god rather than no god?” and “Who created this god?”

(29) The Argument from First Cause – This argument states that we live in a universe of cause-and-effect. However, the argument goes, it is logically impossible to have an infinite regression of causes. At some point the regression has to stop. At that point you need a First Cause that is not the result of any cause itself. That First Uncaused Cause, it is claimed, is God.

The universe we live in now “began” about 13.7 billion years ago. Whether the universe existed in some other form before that – whether there was energy/matter/gravity/etc. (a natural world) before that – is unknown.

We don’t know if the natural world had a beginning or whether it always existed in some form. If it had a beginning, we don’t know that a god is the only possible creative source. We don’t know that a god can be an uncaused cause. What caused God?

Virtual particles pop into and out of existence all the time. Quantum physics demonstrates that there can indeed be uncaused events.

(30) The “Laws” of the Universe – Where did the “laws” of the universe come from? Any physical “law” is merely an observed regularity. It’s not something handed down by a celestial tribunal.

According to physics and astronomy professor Victor Stenger: “It is commonly believed that the “laws of physics” lie outside physics. They are thought to be either imposed from outside the universe or built into its logical structure. Recent physics disputes this. The basic ‘laws’ of physics are mathematical statements that have the form they do in an attempt to describe reality in an objective way. The laws of physics are just what they would be expected to be if they came from nothing.” [all emphasis added]

(31) The “Fine-tuning” of the Universe – Some religious people argue that the six physical constants of the universe (which control such things as the strength of gravity) can only exist within a very narrow range to produce a universe capable of sustaining life. Therefore, since this couldn’t have happened “by accident,” a god must have done it.

Again, this is a god-of-the-gaps argument. But beyond that, this argument assumes that we know everything about astrophysics – a field in which new discoveries are made on almost a daily basis. We may discover that our universe is not so “fine tuned” after all.

Another possibility is that there may exist multiple universes – either separately or as “bubble universes” within a single universe. Each of these universes could have its own set of constants. Given enough universes, by chance it is likely that at least one will produce and sustain life.

We know it is possible for at least one universe to exist – we are in it. If one can exist, why not many? On the other hand, we have no evidence that it is possible for even one god to exist.

Now let’s take a look at most people’s definition of a god: eternal, omni-present, all-knowing, all-powerful, and allloving. Can God be any other way than exactly the way he is?

Although there is some small margin for variance in the “fine-tuning” of the constants of the universe, there is traditionally no margin for variance in the constants of God. Therefore, our universe with a traditional god is logically more implausible than our universe without one.

And, of course, we must ask: Who or what fine-tuned God?

If the universe was created specifically with humans in mind, then the enormous size of the universe (most of it hostile to life) and the billions of years that passed before humans showed up are ridiculous and wasteful – not what we would expect from a god.

(32) The “Fine-tuning” of the Earth – Some religious people argue that the Earth is positioned “just right” in the solar system (not too hot, not too cold, etc.) for life to exist. Furthermore, the elements on Earth (carbon, oxygen, etc.) are also “just right.” These people claim that this couldn’t have happened “by accident,” so a god must exist to have done the positioning and chemistry.

We should be able to recognize a god-of-the-gaps argument here. But an even better rebuttal exists. If Earth was the only planet in the universe, then it would indeed be remarkable that our conditions turned out to be “just right.”

But most religious people acknowledge that there are probably thousands, if not millions, of other planets in the universe. (Our own solar system has eight planets.) Therefore, by chance, at least one of those planets will have conditions that will produce some kind of life.

We can imagine religious purple creatures with four eyes and breathing carbon dioxide on another planet also falsely believing that their planet is “fine-tuned” and that a creator god exists in their image.

(33) Creationism / “Intelligent Design” – This is the idea that if we can’t currently explain something about life, then “God did it” (god-of-the-gaps).

However, if Genesis, or any similar religious creation myth, is true, then virtually every field of science is wrong. Not only is biology wrong, but so too are chemistry, physics, archeology, and astronomy, as well as their many subdisciplines such as embryology and genetics. In fact, we might as well throw out the entire scientific method.

Creationists often make a distinction between “micro” evolution and “macro” evolution – that is, change within a species, which they accept, and change from one species to another, which they do not accept.

But what are the mechanisms for “micro” evolution? They are: mutation, natural selection, and inheritance. And what are the mechanisms for “macro” evolution? Exactly the same: mutation, natural selection, and inheritance. The only difference is the amount of time required. Do some genes say to themselves: “Gee, I better not change too much or it will upset some religious people?”

Evolution is the best explanation, and the only explanation for which we have any evidence, for the age of fossils, for the progression of fossils, for genetic similarities, for structural similarities, and for transitional fossils.

Yes, there are transitional fossils. For example, we have a good fossil trail of species going from land mammal to whale, including basilosaurus, a primitive whale that still retained useless, small hind legs. Even today, whales retain their hip bones.

(Some creationists argue that those tiny hind legs would have been useful for mating, thus basilosaurus was a separately created species and not a transition. But if those hind legs were so useful, why did they evolve completely away?)

In fact, snakes, too, still have hip bones, and once in a great while we see a snake born with vestiges of hind legs, demonstrating their evolution from reptile ancestors that had hind legs.

In China we have found many half-reptile/half-bird fossils, demonstrating that transition. There is the recently discovered fossil tiktaalik, which helped filled a gap between fish and amphibians. It was discovered in Canada, exactly where, and in the age of rock, that evolution predicted. [Thanks to PZ Myers for this point.]

On the other hand, if a perfect god created life we would expect him to do a better job. We wouldn’t expect that 99% of all species that have ever existed would have gone extinct.

As the Christian evolutionary biologist Kenneth R. Miller stated: “if God purposely designed 30 horse species that later disappeared, then God’s primary attribute is incompetence. He can’t make it right the first time.” [“Educators debate ‘intelligent design’ ” by Richard N. Ostling, Star Tribune. March 23, 2002, p. B9.]

As the evangelical Christian Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, stated: “ID [Intelligent Design] portrays the Almighty as a clumsy Creator, having to intervene at regular intervals to fix the inadequacies of His own initial plan for generating the complexity of life.” [The Language of God, pp. 193-194.]

If a perfect god created life we would not expect birth defects. If a perfect god created life we would not expect “unintelligent design” such as a prostate gland that swells and shuts down the urinary tract, when the urinary tract could have just as easily have been routed around the prostate gland. Is “God” an incompetent or sloppy designer?

If a god created all life within a week then, even with an alleged worldwide flood, we would expect to find a thoroughly mixed geologic column of fossils. We don’t find this.

We also have the contradiction that people claim that God is “pro-life,” yet he allows for spontaneous abortion. One third to one half of fertilized human eggs get spontaneously aborted, often before the woman is even aware that she’s pregnant. If a god designed the human system of reproduction, this make God the world’s biggest abortionist.

Thus, scientific evolution provides answers, whereas religious creationism and “intelligent design” only introduce more questions.

(34) The universe and/or life violate the second law of
thermodynamics (entropy) – The second law of
thermodynamics (entropy) states that in a closed system, things
tend toward greater disorder. Some religious people argue that
because the universe and life are so orderly, that a god must be
required who could violate this law.

Again, I thank physics and astronomy professor Victor Stenger for the secular explanation:

The universe does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. The universe started with the maximum amount of disorder possible for its size. Then, as the universe expanded, this allowed for more disorder to occur, and, in fact, it is occurring.

Despite the fact that the overall disorder is increasing in the system called the universe, increasing order is allowed in subsystems, such as galaxies, solar systems, and life – so long as the net effect to the entire universe is increased disorder.

If a god created the universe, we would have expected it to start in an orderly fashion, not in disorder. The fact that the universe started with maximum disorder means that a god could not have created it, because a purposeful creation would have had at least some order to it.

It also turns out that the negative gravitational energy in the universe exactly cancels the positive energy represented by matter, so that the total net energy of the universe is zero, which is what you would expect if the universe came from Nothing by natural means. However, if a god was involved, you would have expected him to have introduced energy into the universe. There is no evidence of this.

It’s interesting how theists will cling to the second law of thermodynamics to try to prove the existence of their god, while totally ignoring the first law of thermodynamics – that matter/energy can be neither created nor destroyed – which would thoroughly disprove the existence of their god as a being who can create something from nothing.

Conclusion – Religious people have a tough, if not impossible task to try to prove a god exists, let alone that their particular religion is true. If any religion had objective standards, wouldn’t everyone be flocking to the same “true” religion? Instead we find that people tend to believe, to varying degrees, the religion in which they were indoctrinated. Or they are atheists.

Related posts:

1. A “Fine-Tuned” Universe as Proof of a God?
2. Atheism 101
3. Ethics & Unity in the Atheist/Humanist Movement