Six Reasons to be an Atheist
Six Reasons to be an Atheist from The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality by
Andre Comte-Sponville
- The weakness of the opposing arguments, the so-called proofs of God's existence
- Common experience: If God existed, he should be easier to see or sense.
- My refusal to explain something I cannot understand by something I understand even less.
- The enormity of evil.
- The mediocrity of mankind.
- Last but not least, the fact that God corresponds so perfectly to our wishes that there is every reason to think he was invented to fulfill them, at least in fantasy; this makes religion an illusion in the Freudian sense of the term.
Comments
These all seem like good arguments for being Agnostic. Being an Atheist is making a knowledge claim that you believe that there is NOT a God. Yes, there's no good proof. Either way, so believing against is no stronger than #1. God ought be easily seen? Does that really fit with the concept? I don't think so at all. #2 doesn't make sense with my conceptions of God.
3 sure don't accept it, but not much grounds to reject it there either. 4 & 5: see #2. It's all about your idea of God - and yes, the Christian concept is weak here. 6: Well, the Christian idea of a God & Heaven sure correspond nicely - and easily enough rationalists can reject their fantasies. But once again, it's all about the God you envision, whether he'd have this silly contradictions or not.Not a bad list. Just better to the point of a) rejecting a christian idea of god, or b) a basis for Agnosticism.
I like #6... It's like the ontological argument flipped around.
"The enormity of evil"? what the hell is that suposed to mean?... must be an american thing, good and bad guys, the American struggle with good and evil, who knows.
"The mediocrity of mankind"? Assuming the size of the universe we can see, mankind is, at least, amazing. I'd never say that mankind and life is mediocre, it truly is the most awesome thing of all (apart from existance itself).
I thing you are trying to mix nihilism with atheism mate.
These seem like pretty rubbish reasons to me, frankly. 'The mediocrity of mankind'? WTF? Should we be able to fly to prove the existence of god? How cyncial and defeatest, not in terms of religion, but simple, hopeful, humanism.
It is the problem of evil if there is a god and he all powerful why does he allow so much heinous shit to happen. Tsunamis killing children . . . Certainly he could tone it down a bit. So the argument is that there is no god or he's such an evil fuck that why the hell would you worship him.
If an all knowing all powerful God designed mankind he kind of botched it don't you think. The design is not what you'd expect from an uber designer.
As for who views them as good reasons for being agnostic. Please read this on agnosticism and then we can continue the discussion if you like.
Being an Atheist is making a knowledge claim that you believe that there is NOT a God
No it's not. It's a denial of the affirmation that there IS a god.
Grow up.
An Atheist.
PS-- I feel the same way about Santa, and I don't feel the need to prove "No santa" either.
Robc, Your wrong when you say "Being an Atheist is making a knowledge claim that you believe that there is NOT a God." Being an atheist is making a cliam the you do not believe in god based on knowledge. It is not a claim as to weather a god exists or not. It is a claim as to what you believe based on pure knowledge.
I guess part of the issue I have is that all these arguments involve attacking the idea of a "god" that one might expect to come from a six year old: the "all knowing, all powerful god" idea. Okay admitedly there are plenty of fundamentalists (at least in the US and Mid East) which might hold those principles, but I would suggest that they're in the minority as far as everyone who holds some kind of concept of 'god'.
I don't really see how these arguments have much to do with a more complex theory of 'spirituality' (for lack of a better word), for example, the concepts of mass consciousness and so forth...
Maybe I'm misunderstanding atheism, but I was under the impression that a successful atheistic argument ought to be able to discount all those theories, not just a pretty simplified christian fundamentalist god ideal. It's kinda like claiming you're the world's fastest runner after beating a man with one leg...
Anyway, it seems to much more interesting use of intellectual vigor seems to be attacking the way in which particular religious principles are used to create and maintain real political power, rather than attacking the notion of god itself. That kind of power hungry destructive rubbish comes from all religions, not just the fundamentalist stream... hell, it even comes from communism and the communists aren't well known for their love of religious freedom.
"must be an american thing, good and bad guys, the American struggle with good and evil, who knows."
Comte-Sponville is French.
"I thing you are trying to mix nihilism with atheism mate."
Actually, the exact opposite. Read the book. It's the most forceful argument against nihilism I've ever read.
I don't believe in god, but I wish these anti-religons nuts would be over themselves. I think they are mostly just trying to capitalize on the market for these books, but I think they need to learn to play with others because religon isn't doing away anytime soon.
Instead, why don't they take the lead from E.O. Wilson, the Pulitzer Prize winning Havard sociobiologist (who happens to be an atheist) but instead of making silly "scientific" arguments against religion he tries to engage the religous and solicit their help in protecting God's creation: http://www.amazon.com/Creation-Appeal-Save-Life-Earth/dp/0393062171
THAT seems like a worthwhile endeavor! Much more effective and level-headed an approach than trying to offend, isolate and divide.
what you'll calling for amounts to ethnogenocide. Do you really want to reduce the "ethnosphere" to just one way of viewing the world? ethnosphere defined as "the sum total of all thoughts and dreams, myths, ideas, inspirations, intuitions brought into being by the human imagination." by Wade Davis in his TED TALK. please listen to his talk.
That's a theory, what does it predict how do you verify it. It's nothing more than meaningless, contentless drivel. Tell me more about these "sophisticated" theories you're talking about, and then explain how to test it. "For lack of a better word" sums it up pretty well, you can't even present it in a coherent manner.
Jeez, that was a bit more hostile than I was expecting.
In my defense though, I wasn't suggesting these other religious ideas were 'sophisticated' as such, merely sophisticated in comparison to the fairly basic concept of god that which the points were disproving.
If pushed, I guess in terms of the use of the term 'mass conscious' I was referring to a kind of Jungian model or Joseph Campbell narrative theory I suppose.
Anyways, I'm not arguing in favor of any kind of metaphysical ideals, I'm just suggesting that attacking the notion of spiritual possibility in itself, seems a rather pointless exercise in comparison to looking more closely at the roots of how certain ideologies actually come to create physical and mental harm to people. I'd also suggest those roots are not confined to religion.
I had always imagined that was a strong part of the roots of the current proselytizing atheistic movement. Otherwise, in a utilitarian sense, what's the point? Except I suppose creating a sense of academic superiority amongst its supporters.
I suppose I was a bit harsh, didn't really mean to offend, but I really see the terms like "mass conscious" as meaningless.
What does it mean when you say the notion of a spiritual possibility? Unless you are willing to define it of what possible use is it No atheist attacks such nebulous constructs. What they attack is when the conversation goes from what you call a "spiritual possibility" that suddenly morphs into something, else and is given all kinds of attributes, it comforts us, it created us. Of what possible use is a discussion of an undefined 'spiritual possibility'. If I say okay there is a spiritual possibility where does the conversation go from there. The answer is nowhere. It is simply the end of the conversation. The point is the discussion is never of the undefined "spiritual possibility" it is rather about what that morphs into. Most commonly some sort of a God that cares about us and plays some role in our lives.
What is it with the agnostics? They fall into the religious's game. I am what religious and agnostics would call an atheist, but "Atheism" has the same meaning to me as "unastrology". I just don't consider the reality of any gods in my life whatsoever. I only reject god because people are bringing him up all the time.
Also and more importantly, the fact that we're not sure if there is no god ('cause I'm not 100% positively sure), doesn't mean either that the chances are 50-50. it is more like "very, very little" chance that there is a god, and "a big, huge" chance that there isn't. Every time in the history of science that a religious belief has been defeated by science and rationality, is a piece of evidence that the god thing was and is a lie. EVERY one of the things we know now in the 21st century that were thought something else by the religious is a piece of evidence, a testament to god being invented. Add to that that we don't even need god to explain anything anymore (besides probably what started the big bang, but even then there are speculations and hypotheses that are reasonable and natural).
Knowledge progresses, agnostics with a 50-50 mentality are just playing into the religious' hands.
Petercox,
The way I see it, most if not all these "theological" "sophisticated" arguments are just fluff. They sure make it so no one really, clearly understands it. But also the thing is that their starting point was that six-year-old simplistic conception of god.
They diluted the thing, getting rid of any testable or clear claims about nature and the universe. They got rid of all the natural claims of religion, and just retained the "spiritual". But that spiritual part also came from a clearly nonsensical simplistic claim, it has just transformed, and "evolved" if you will, so no one can really deny it on scientific grounds.
I think PZ Myer's The Courtier's Reply is right to the point here.
I'm a religious person, but I think these really are the best reasons for non-belief. The enormity of evil is the best (worst?) one. And yet some people manage to believe, quite strongly, though they've experienced that enormity much more than I. Perhaps they know something I don't know.
2 grates against #6 somewhat. I think I'd like God to be more evident to me. He's not, so the only conceptions available to me are ones which do not quite conform to my wishes. I don't think I immediately leap toward the idea that God had to become a person and be killed. Maybe my inclinations are not typical of humans, but I don't think so.On the other hand, if the idea of God fulfills some human wishes and desires, why should this raise suspicions? A god that fits perfectly with human longing confirms the notion that human beings created a story to fulfill their wishes (virtually, as it were, not actually)--the projection theory (of Feuerbach and Marx before Freud)--but it also confirms the notion that human beings are creations of God. If humans are ordered toward God, their inclinations should point toward him.
"Atheism" has the same meaning to me as 'unastrology'"
Maybe, depending on what you mean. Atheism has no necessary positive content, yes. It doesn't have to be rationalistic. But it does presuppose religion, in the normal usage of "atheism". Atheists have encountered religion, or theism, and explicitly reject both things. In this sense atheism takes religion more seriously, I think. It's not indifferent to its claims.
dende blogger,
What prevents me to say the exact same thing about astrology? "But it does presuppose astrology, in the normal use of 'unastrology'" (whatever that may mean). That's why I say I am an atheist just like I am an unastrologer. If "unastrologer" sounds like a silly thing to call oneself, then to me, "atheist" should be too (but it obviously isn't).
Also, most atheists haven't "encountered" theism to later reject it. It has been pushed to us via indoctrination and/or plain brute force. Again, if others didn't brought up religion as real, I wouldn't feel the need at all to reject god.
It's true, atheism as an "ism" depends on theism, but only as a reaction to it. Personally, I would be glad if neither existed. We would all be atheists, but no one would really know it (or care either way).
The belief in God is nearly a universal experience for all cultures - streams of light into the darkness. Perhaps what R. Dawkins wants is for God to appear before him in person and hold him by the hand - of course where would the faith be?
To me the position of athiest requires a greater leap of faith than that required of a Believer. So what does he believe in then, the Multiverse? (a natural extension of string theory) The Anthropic principle is a convenient escape for athiests when confronted with the underlying principles and uniqueness of our universe.
Full disclosure: This is my first posting on this site. I am a Christian, and readily accept the "old universe" model and most aspects of evolution (it is a good theory that still needs refinement, as most theories do).
I am less amused by the derision that Dawkins holds for Believers - good thing we don't live in an athiestic theocracy (think former Soviet Union).
Yeah, Subman, you have just expemplified most if not all misconceptions about atheism. Clearly you haven't read Dawkins's book, which mostly are not new arguments anyway, just well-organized.
And why do you have to believe in something? Why can't you just say "We don't know yet". But even the multiverse, as crazy as it may sound is a more plausible hypothesis than god, simply because it doesn't contradict physics. It is perfectly natural.
Andyo - "I only reject god because people are bringing him up all the time."
Great comment. You don't see many religious types defending themselves from polytheism in this country so why should we be defending ourselves from monotheism?
“I contend we are both atheists,I simply believe in one fewer god than you do.”
...the "all knowing, all powerful god" idea. Okay admitedly there are plenty of fundamentalists (at least in the US and Mid East) which might hold those principles, but I would suggest that they're in the minority as far as everyone who holds some kind of concept of 'god'.
Peter, I am not particularly impressed with this list either, but I think you are misguided about the worldwide sophistication of believers. Do you think that Latin American Catholics don't buy into the "all knowing, all powerful god"? Filipino Christians? Indonesian Muslims? Russian Orthodox? Frankly, if there were no "all knowing, all powerful god" types around, I'd still be an atheist, but I think I'd have the attitude I had 25 years ago - who cares?
@norm, no worries. I think I'm arguing an off topic point, really which is most of the problem.
@Tim, yes perhaps I'm being a bit optimistic...
I find the atheist argument almost as weak as the religious argument.
Atoms and the subatomic world were once undetectable, but that doesn't mean they didn't exist because we couldn't observe them.
I believe in some kind of higher power, but not as described by any religion. Just as we once could not "see" atoms, I believe there is still much we cannot see or detect. We simply aren't that smart yet, evidenced by the strident arguments on both sides.
There is too much anger and hate from both factions, and I think it's sad that neither can see the center.
Andyo - I am not sure how I have exemplified the misconceptions about athiesm, but I do confess I have not read Dawkins book. I am behind on my current reading (but currently on a Steven Gould book).
Regardless, It appears that Dawkins has succeeded in convincing many that an athiest's assertion that there is no God is no leap of faith. I perhaps should read that aspect - on the face of it it appears that his (Dawkins) logic is flawed. Forgive me for being somewhat flippant regarding the above statement - I used to be an athiest myself, so I do feel somewhat qualified to speak on the subject.
The only reason why the multiverse doesn't "violate" the laws of physics is because it accepts everything - while making no predictions on what our universe should be like. The problem with strings and the multiverse is that they both make no predictions that can be verified. And when new discoveries are made (dark matter / energy), the existing theories are re-written to accommodate them. It would have been nice if the multiverse could have predicted the cosmological constant before it was experimentally verified(accelerating expanding universe).
I reiterate my point - the multiverse is a poor excuse for string theory's inability to develop a satifactory theory of everything. However many pursue and accept strings with a certain religious zeal. At least Relativity, QM, QED and Gage theory have made some predictions.
Thank-you for your response - I look forward to your reply.
This seems to indicate more of a cultural creation than an actual "god", if you ask me. If "god" did exist, you'd think that this "universal" would be a bit more "universal". To some cultures, it's a turtle, to others, it's 20-30 gods. To some, it's the first human. Others, it's a fox. How to believe in the god varies in every culture too. Most of these beliefs seem more related to the local history, mores and livestock than to anything otherworldly.
You must have been raised christian then. Your family tells you god is there, your culture tells you god is there, 80% of the people you know are christian (i'm supposing).
This is like saying it takes more faith to not believe in fairies than it does to believe in them. Do you have more faith than me in the lack of invisible fairies in the world?
Science has said that it's not impossible for the supposed "fine tuning" to have other "fine tuned" settings, so to speak, and the universe would still exist, albeit in a different configuration than that it is in now.
I do confess I have not read Dawkins book...t appears that Dawkins has succeeded in convincing many that an athiest's assertion that there is no God is no leap of faith.
Subman,
If you have some specific argument supporting the proposition that atheism requires a leap of faith, present it. What is the use of bringing in Dawkins if you don't know what he has argued? I'm guessing that the argument has been made and responded to a hundred times before on OGM, but have at it.
...the multiverse is a poor excuse for string theory's inability to develop a satifactory theory of everything. However many pursue and accept strings with a certain religious zeal. At least Relativity, QM, QED and Gage [sic] theory have made some predictions.
You're disenchanted with string theory, I presume. You are expressing your disenchantment by way of arguing that string theorists have failed to provide a 'theory of everything' and therefore ... what? Theism rules?
Subman,
It is not Dawkins who convinced me. It is also not Dawkins's original argument the fact that we're not 100% positively, absolutely sure that there is no god, but for all practical purposes, we can say with evidence that there isn't. Again, every time a piece of religious "knowledge" has been subverted by science and rationality is a nail in the coffin for god-claims.
So, it is not 100%, absolutely, positively, theoretically sure that there is no god. I don't think it is, not Dawkins either, and not many of the modern vocal atheists. But the stakes are not 50-50 either. There is VERY LITTLE support for the god hypothesis. Nevermind that it violates the laws of physics to have a god that meddles with us, but even the creator-only "god", if you can call him that, is less plausible than the craziest scientific hypotheses, like multiverses and 11-dimensional branes.
Regarding string theory and such, you don't have string theorists telling us that strings somehow dictate morals, or want us to do stuff. They will be the first to tell you that they may be wrong. Brian Greene's book makes it very clear that they feel they may be on to something, but he never states that he believes it's positively a sure thing, that experimental evidence is due before making such assumptions. He also makes it clear that it's more than mere speculation. There is math, there is the prediction of the graviton, and other stuff I don't remember very well, like the Higgs particle I think.
If anything, the string theorists are overly optimistic, but it's far from religious zeal. Some physicists who are against all the time spent on what they see as a pointless theory strike to me as angry, and though they may be right about that, when they say string theorists are zealous, they surely are being figurative.
Now, where are the maths for god? Where are the predictions? It doesn't even make non-testable predictions. The god hypothesis is not on the same level as any scientific theory or hypothesis, as crazy as they may be.
The theories aren't really re-written, they are fine-tuned. Even Newton's theory of gravity is still valid, Einstein only modified it for extreme, relativistic circumstances. That is absolutely astounding, that a 300-year-old piece of knowledge works so well even today. That can only be achieved by scientific precision. Quantum mechanics is even more astounding, and the most accurate scientific theory ever. If something is discovered (and it most probably will) that physicists have to modify it, it will not have to be "re-written", just modified. Even if String theory turned out to be true, it wouldn't invalidate QM or General Relativity, it would only encompass them both, unify them. And even if a scientific theory had to be fundamentally re-written, it doesn't erase its past successes. Now, we atheists have decided that we don't need god anymore, because it doesn't explain anything. But what are god's past successes? It never really explained anything in the first place. The god hypothesis wouldn't go down in the history of knowledge as a good hypothesis, let alone as a real one.
Also, I don't see how the failure of any scientific enterprise says anything about god one way or another. If we have learned anything from millennia of accumulated knowledge, is that if we try again, a natural explanation will eventually surface. The thought that if we can't understand something, therefore "god did it" has never helped, and only caused obstacles for progress.
Sorry, reading back, I think I ought to change the phrase "There is VERY LITTLE support for the god hypothesis" to "There is NO evidence supporting the god hypothesis, but we can't 100% deny it the same as we can't 100% deny any other gods of any other religions". It is just a fundamental quirk in logic, trying to deny 100% something that there is no evidence for.
Consider a brand new baby, So innocent and gentle and smells so sweet. That baby carries the stain of original sin.
Only a completely naive, gullible person could believe that.
First of all, the atheist's assertion is not that "there is no God", but that there is no god until proven otherwise. Isn't this how we deal with all matters?... We assume that something is false until proven otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence. Or perhaps you believe in everything until it is proven that it doesn't exist? If this is the case, then you must believe in the healing power of crystals, in the tenets of Islam, and in every other religion and myth under the sun.
Scott,
I don't see how a misguided belief in original sin is proof God doesn't exist. The errant practices of religion have nothing to do with God, and are neither proof for or against such a being.
Too much of atheism seems to be an angry reaction to idiots and their ignorant beliefs. I believe God exists, but has never been adequately described by any holy book or organized religion. And "he" certainly didn't write any of those holy books.
I can see arguing that point, because there is proof to cite, but arguing that there is no God is ultimately not a winning battle, except in the atheist's mind. Take on the historicity of the Bible and other religious tomes, and then you'll have a compelling argument.
Well, that's absolutely true, if the battle is "won" you're already an "atheist", aren't you? Though I don't know if you meant it that way.
Ok, fine. Whatever. Good for you. I have no (major) arguements with that. The "athiest" is only a creature who exists to laugh at the god that tells you what to eat, who to give your "tithing" to, what building to sit in on sunday.. etc etc.
Yes, but the god you envision matters as much as, say, the teapot orbiting the sun, and as much thought should be devoted to it.
And arguing that there is no Stamp is ultimately not a winning battle. Arguing that there aren't little invisible fairies who hang out in your garden is ultimately not a winning battle.
There is no scientific evidence for the non existence of mythical beings that any given person may want to believe in.
Heretic! May your tongue be papercut for eternity!
I was raised as an atheist by my father, who remained one until his death a few years ago due to alcoholism. By high school I embraced atheism due to what I perceived to the injustice inflicted by organized religion upon humanity, and the superiority of science in explaining the Creation and evolution.
I accept that men have committed atrocities in the name of religion – but in reality they were thinly veiled power grabs. Many of the religious wars in medieval Europe were born out of a desire for the established order to maintain its dominance – religion became a convenient excuse for that most base of sins, the lust for power that drives many in the past and today. Ironically I want to read Philip Pullman’s books because I do agree at least in part with his criticism of the Authority.
While I cannot prove that there is a God, neither can the atheist absolutely prove there is no God. I enjoy statistics such as “less than 50%”. Statistics like this (especially for philosophical subjects) are at best a guess. The leap of faith for an atheist assumes that despite the missing bits in evolution (there are a few) and the numerous gaps in cosmology, there is enough evidence to allow a statement with 100% certainty that there is no God. I can’t claim those odds that when I drive into work in the morning I will make it with 100% certainty– for something that I can feel and see, much less than the philosophical subject of the existence of God. There are gaps in cosmology – Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are great theories, they have made predictions and have been extensively been proven, but they still have gaps. And I agree as more experiments defined by these theories are performed they will be refined – there is no fault in that. But there are some huge gaps, such as the universe being fined tuned, that have no explanation – and that the one theory that purports to solve this dilemma (strings) has woefully come up short.
I have read Brian Greene’s book, and have shown the NOVA special “the Elegant Universe” to my family in the past.
I suggest you read Lee Smolin’s book “the Trouble with Physics”. And who knows maybe a Final Theory will be developed that explains the universe – I still do not see how that disproves God. To quote Lee Smolin (thanks to Wikipedia): “..that the proposal of a landscape of up to 10500 string vacuum solutions is tantamount to abandoning accepted science: The scenario of many unobserved universes plays the same logical role as the scenario of an intelligent designer. Each provides an untestable hypothesis that, if true, makes something improbable seem quite probable.[5]”
My guess is that OGM does not accept the premise of an Intelligent Designer…
Fear not, when I go to Church I promise my wife to keep quite lest I mention some “nonsense” that the earth is more than 6,000 years old. One time I mentioned in front of a pastor of a Bible church that the universe was about 14.7 B yrs old – the reaction was one of utter shock. So I can understand how the participants in this community must feel when they read about some Christians. I feel like I am treading between the Glory and the Flame – I leave the rest up to you!
My question to you – IF there is a God, how would He convey His nature and attributes to us - I suspect that He would want to. Would he have any expectations of us – I doubt He cares about how much we obey some human (religious) institution.
Best regards, Subman
And you cannot prove that there are not invisible little fairies in your garden. So what?
And? So those gaps are proof of a god?
And where did "god" come from?
Interesting how you demand so much from science as pertains to knowledge of the universe, and yet you don't demand the same scientific rigor as pertains to the concept of "god"..
And IF there were little fairies in our gardens and in the forest, how would they convey Their nature and attributes to us?
It seems to me that what many atheists have a problem with is the things the churches say. But as much as they'd like to fool themselves and others, they aren't speaking for God.
If you are an atheist, ask yourself if you've chosen not to believe because of a reaction to Church demagoguery and the intolerance of their members. If you are somebody who insists on empirical evidence for everything, then fine. Atheism is probably your only choice, and I feel more akin to you than "believers."
But realize that at one time in the past, you would then not have believed in atomic particles, or microbes, because there was once no empirical evidence for the microscopic world, even though they were conceived of hundreds of years earlier.
At best I've been an agnostic, but am now a firm believer in something I cannot define firmly. I can't offer you up some kind of proof, only my own theories. That doesn't mean there isn't a God, merely that we don't know how to observe it.
Subman,
I can see you're being honest, but really, you are still making the same old arguments that have been already dismissed by the same old counterarguments.
The "god of the gaps" was never any help, and again, if something, is a detriment to knowledge. Or are you saying god did the fine-tunings of the universe? So we can NEVER discover why it is actually fine-tuned, and that maybe the fine-tuning came naturally?
Cause that's what you're saying by putting god there. That is a BOLD argument, and it has been made countless of times before, almost for everything we know now about the universe. Every time that god of the gaps has been defeated for any piece of knowledge is evidence for its being invented, and each time it makes for a pretty good chance that the next time god will still not be there. Multiply that for the countless of times our cumulative knowledge has subverted the god of the gaps, and by now, in the 21st century, there is no doubt (not 100%, but in practice) that the god of the gaps is just an invention. Even if we assumed a god of the gaps now, in the 21st century, there is no support whatsoever for a god that meddles with us (i.e. messes with natural laws) or answers prayers. It would be a god that doesn't care either way, and it wouldn't even be omnipotent, so why even call "it" god?
About the "gaps" in evolutionary theory and QM and General Relativity, it's exactly the same, but you're talking as if Evolution had any "gaps" that could subvert the whole theory. The fact that evolution doesn't need a "drive" is pretty much set. The controversies are within the theory, about some mechanisms. You've said you're not a creationist (at least a young-earth one). Another thing is that even if you wanted to put a god in the context of evolution, it bears worse for god, since it would have to be a malicious, ruthless, sadistic dick kind of god.
I can't just imagine there is a god and how he would convey his message to us without considering what we know. What we know points that if there is an omnipotent or at least powerful enough god, it is playing with us, it is malicious, it is sadistic, maybe not a dictator, but it enjoys seeing us suffer and die (and not only us, we are just one of the last products of billions of years of evolution). But I'll be the first to say, that is a bad thing for religion, but I don't think there's any evidence to there being the bad kind of god, just as there isn't for the good one. IF we assume, though, just out of the blue, that there IS a god, it would pretty much have to be the bad one.
Personally, I am much more amazed at the stuff we, in this little "pale blue dot" can know about the universe. I am not amazed at what we can't know, because we don't really know what we can't know anyway, do we? What we have achieved, the knowledge we have acquired with science astounds me. Of course, that knowledge has been used for good and bad, but that's just human frailty. Religions as knowledge providers have never been really impressive, on the contrary, they strike me as so mundane and provincial, and compared to other kinds of fiction, most of them pretty unimaginative.
Subman,
As a lifelong atheist, I find the whole "you can't prove that there is no God" argument totally pathetic. Do you believe in everything that can't be disproved? I'm still waiting (36 years and counting) for any evidence whatsoever for the existence of anything supernatural. Before I gave any thought to the existence of gods, you'd have to convince me that souls exist.
As for the universe being fine tuned, it's not. We are. A classic case of the Douglas Adams puddle. If it were ever shown that there are no other conditions under which any form of life could form, then you might have a case. As it is, this argument is just a case of intellectual arrogance. It is much like the argument that life evolving on Earth is highly improbable, when in fact that probability is one.
As for what I would expect from a God to prove they exist, anything obvious would do. Something unequivocally divine. I'm not holding my breath. I tend to agree with Andyo, if there were a God, it would probably be something like the Christian one, a sado-masochistic bastard.
Malcolm,
I agree with you obviously, but I think Subman was referring to fine-tuning as the fine-tuning of the physical constants. They do appear to be finely tuned, so we can have the universe that we have. If one of them changed just a bit, (I don't have the exact numbers right now) for example, stars couldn't form. That's why some physicists propose multiverses, or some stuff like that. I don't think there's a strong argument there, but it's still less implausible than god in my opinion. The bottom line is just that we don't know yet.
Oh, and a quibble. I'd leave out the "masochistic" part of "sado-masochistic bastard" description of the god you depict. We don't know if he is in any pain, do we?
Andyo,
The fine-tuning argument is, in my opinion, very weak. The biggest problem is that it isn't possible to prove it. We can't conduct an experiment to test the hypothesis. There may very well be other combinations of constants that would produce a stable, viable universe capable of producing some form of life. It still comes down to, it happened, so we are here. If it hadn't occurred we wouldn't be having this discussion.
The masochistic bit comes from the whole Christian "gave his only son" thing. Who but a masochist would choose to be born with the express purpose of being brutally murdered. If this god had wanted to forgive everyone (for a crime they didn't commit), surely it would have been less painful to just say "you're forgiven."
Malcolm,
Well, I only said so far the constants appear to be fine-tuned. Physicists don't know yet where they come from, as they are measured, but it is not to be taken literally that they're "fine-tuned". They just appear to be. Of course there is no reason to argue that they are (or aren't) until there's evidence, but so far the observation is that they just are the way they are without apparent reason. Subman was clinging to that observation, as do many rather reasonable religious who have seen their other "gaps" in knowledge already exhausted by science. I don't think he was making the argument that it is a fact that the constants were actually fine-tuned, (as neither was I). He just assumed and clung to the observation, used that as the argument, and proposed god as one explanation.
As far as I know, there are hypotheses about this that get rid of the "fine-tuning" naturally, which are very plausible, but lack on hard evidence. It could be that they are actually "fine-tuned" in a cosmic evolution kind of way.
About the masochistic thing, to paraphrase Dennis Miller: Oh, you were talking about that Jesus Christ!
Subman: I don't know how to ask this gently, or politely, but it's a curiosity of mine: answer it if you are comfortable. Did your belief in god come before or after your father die? If not, did it relate to another family memeber/friend's death? Just curious.
If Religion is wrong about the world (earth made in 6 days, world flooded for Noah, rainbows exist only after flood, black people have the "mark of cain", all statements which are pretty readily dismissed by science and physical proof, or lack of) and religion is so unreliable on what "god" says or is (according to Subman), then why hold on to the God produced by christianity?
I have to keep this quick, it's late and I have a long day at work tomorrow - but I couldn't resist responding to Magnolia's comment.
I became a Christian long before my father's death - my conversion was unfortunately a source of friction in our relationship.
Just as there are misconceptions about atheism, so are there about the bible. 1. As you may have guessed by now I do not take the 6 day creation literally. What is a day? - night was not separated from day until the 4th day. In James it says that with the Lord one day is a thousand years, and a thousand as one day (one could equally interpret it as a million..) 2. The mark of Cain - that interpretation is NOT found in the bible and is an extreme position. The prominent abolitionists were Christians (as well as some slave owners) 3. The rainbow? The Old testament uses allot of imagery. Most civilizations do record a flood, although I agree not perhaps of the whole world
The Bible is not about science (that is why God gave us a brain to figure that part out), but rather the relationship between Him and man. Very little space is devoted to the Creation - that was not the objective. Science and the universe are a manifestation of His work, which is why I find it so distressing that so many Christians now and in the past tend to be anti-science. Yet many prominent scientists in the past were devout Christians (Newton).
Andyo - I do appreciate your clarification of the fine-tuning on your second post..
More later.
Subman,
So which bits of the bible, if any, do you believe, and on what basis do you make your choice?
What is a day? - night was not separated from day until the 4th day. In James it says that with the Lord one day is a thousand years, and a thousand as one day (one could equally interpret it as a million..)
And that about sums it up, eh? One can interpret it anyway that one wants to in order to fit one's way of wanting to view life. Not that this has anything to do with reality, but if it feels good, what the hell, why not?
Subman,
When you say that most civilizations record a flood, I assume that you mean, most civilizations from around the Red Sea. If not, I think you might want to do some more research.
I've actually always wondered how godbots reconcile the flood myth with Chinese historical records. Given that they started writing things down thousands of years before anyone living around the Med thought of it, it seems rather implausible that the Jewish people would have a record of it, yet the Chinese wouldn't. You'd think that the Aborigines would have noticed it too.
Mmmmm, Newton was also an astrologist, but I don't see you keeping your eyes on the heavens to influence your choices.
This was my point. Why dismiss anything that doesn't jive with science, but accept other dubious claims?
My response to number six.
Hence a good reason to be a Christian. Not a church-suit hypocrite, like Hollywood likes to expose us to all the time (I wonder if we'll ever see a Presbyterian character... nah), but someone who actually follows the teachings of the Bible.
And a lot of the time, I don't like those teachings, mostly because they require self-sacrifice. I'm not opposed to it, and I tend to go out of my way to serve others anyway. But I'm still awfully resistant to a lot of changes that need to be made to my life if I'm ever gonna get my lazy butt in gear and do some good.
Plus, it's the only religion in the world that sets a clear standard. Nothing else does. And it's the only religion where the supreme deity actually sacrificed His glory and Himself to his own judgment, just to save a bunch of lowlife creatures that don't even deserve pity, much less saving.
And that's my little rant. Two little reasons why being a Christian is actually a good idea.
Of course, God also gave us freedom of thought, so in the end your decisions are your own; bear that in mind, always.
ya missed the point Wolf.
Wolfgang
You say that your god made some kind of sacrifice to save "a bunch of lowlife creatures..."
You obviously haven't really thought much about this religion of yours. First of all, who are you calling lowlife scum? Your religion assumes that everyone is to blame for something a fictitious character is supposed to have done thousands of years ago. I don't know about you, but I certainly haven't done anything worthy of eternal damnation.
Secondly, what sacrifice? Your god is supposed to be all powerful and all knowing. So that means that your god chose to be tortured. If he's the one making the rules, then he's the one who decided someone needed to die horribly. For it to be a sacrifice, there would have to be some kind of outside agency who decreed that someone would have to die before anyone could go to heaven. If such an agency exists, they are obviously more powerful than your god. If no such agency exists, your god is just a masochist.
As to your first point, that you need your religion to be good; surely that is more of a character fault on your part, than a reason to be a Christian.
dahling, politics is so very dreary. i almost feel like dredging up an old post and having an old fashioned knock down, drag out over religion. but if that proves impossibly bad form, let's paint clinton as a cult leader/guru next time instead of obama, change it up a little.
how her eyes flash and throb!how she commands obedience! why, unlike any previous president, she has brought forth life out of her OWN BODY! i say she exists, oh ye of little faith.
ah, but i know what you're gonna say:
blasphemers. you have created your own hell.
Post a comment