Godless (21 page)
“We all have a feeling of right and wrong, a conscience which puts us under a higher law. This universal moral urge points outside of humanity. It is consistent that God, a nonphysical being, would relate to us by such sublime means.”
Here is another argument based on ignorance. Ethical systems are based on the worth humans have assigned to life
:
“good” is that which enhances life and “evil” is that which threatens it. We do not need a deity to tell us it is wrong to kill, lie or steal. Humans have always had the potential to use their minds to determine what is kind and reasonable.
:
“good” is that which enhances life and “evil” is that which threatens it. We do not need a deity to tell us it is wrong to kill, lie or steal. Humans have always had the potential to use their minds to determine what is kind and reasonable.
There is no “universal moral urge” and not all ethical systems agree. Polygamy, human sacrifice, infanticide, cannibalism (Eucharist), wife beating, self-mutilation, foot binding, preemptive war, torture of prisoners, circumcision, female genital mutilation, racism, sexism, punitive amputation, castration and incest are perfectly “moral” in certain cultures. Is god confused?
To call god a “nonphysical being” is contradictory. A
being
must exist as some form of mass in space and time. But even if such a being existed, what authenticity could its opinions hold regarding us physical creatures? Values reside within physical brains, so if morality points to “god” then we are it. The god concept is just a projection of human ideals. (See Chapter 12 for more on morality.)
being
must exist as some form of mass in space and time. But even if such a being existed, what authenticity could its opinions hold regarding us physical creatures? Values reside within physical brains, so if morality points to “god” then we are it. The god concept is just a projection of human ideals. (See Chapter 12 for more on morality.)
“If there is no absolute moral standard then there is no ultimate right or wrong. Without God there is no ethical basis, and social order would disintegrate. Our laws are based on scripture.”
This is an argument for
belief
in a god, not for the existence of a god. The demand for “absolute” morality comes only from insecure religionists who don’t trust (or have been told not to trust) their own moral reasoning. (Voltaire quipped: “If god did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.”) Mature people are comfortable with the relativism of humanism since it provides a consistent, rational and flexible framework for ethical
human
behavior—without a deity.
belief
in a god, not for the existence of a god. The demand for “absolute” morality comes only from insecure religionists who don’t trust (or have been told not to trust) their own moral reasoning. (Voltaire quipped: “If god did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.”) Mature people are comfortable with the relativism of humanism since it provides a consistent, rational and flexible framework for ethical
human
behavior—without a deity.
American laws are based on a secular constitution, not the bible. Any scriptures that might support a good law do so only because they have met the test of human values, which long predate the ineffective Ten Commandments.
There is no evidence that theists are more moral than atheists. In fact, the contrary seems to be true, as portrayed by centuries of religious violence. Most atheists are happy, productive and moral. There have been some wonderful Christians and wonderful atheists. There have been horrible Christians and horrible atheists. Stalin was a horrible atheist. Hitler was a horrible Christian. People should be judged by their actions, not by their beliefs. (See Chapter 10 and Chapter 12 for a deeper analysis of moral questions.)
“Everything had a cause, and every cause is the effect of a previous cause. Something must have started it all. God, who exists outside of time and space, is the eternal first cause, the unmoved mover, the creator and sustainer of the universe.”
The major premise of this argument, “everything had a cause,” is contradicted by the conclusion that “God did not have a cause.” You can’t have it both ways. If
everything
had to have a cause, then there could not be a first cause. If it is possible to think of a god as uncaused, then it is possible to think the same of the universe.
everything
had to have a cause, then there could not be a first cause. If it is possible to think of a god as uncaused, then it is possible to think the same of the universe.
Some theists, observing that all “effects” need a cause, assert that God is a cause but not an effect. But no one has ever observed an uncaused cause and simply inventing one merely assumes what the argument wishes to prove. If a god can be thought eternal, then so can the universe. The word “cause” is a transitive verb. Causality requires temporality. If God exists outside of time, he cannot cause anything. (See Chapter 8 for more on this subject.)
“God can’t be proved. But if God exists, the believer gains everything (goes to heaven) and the unbeliever loses everything (goes to hell). If God doesn’t exist, the believer loses nothing and the unbeliever gains nothing. There is therefore everything to gain and nothing to lose by believing in God.”
Pascal’s Wager, first formulated by French philosopher Blaise Pascal, is not an argument at all. It is sheer intimidation. It is not a case for a god’s existence; it is an argument for belief, based on a threat of violence. “If you don’t believe, you will be tortured.” With this kind of reasoning we should simply pick the religion with the worst hell. The Islamic hell might be hotter than the Christian hell, so Christians, “What if you are wrong?”
It is not true that the believer loses nothing. We diminish this life by preferring the myth of an afterlife. We sacrifice honesty to the maintenance of a lie. Religion demands time, energy and money, draining valuable human resources from the improvement of
this
world. Religious conformity, a tool of tyrants, is a threat to freedom.
this
world. Religious conformity, a tool of tyrants, is a threat to freedom.
Nor is it true that the unbeliever gains nothing. Rejecting religion can be a positive and liberating experience that allows you to gain perspective and freedom of inquiry. Freethinkers have always been in the forefront of social and moral progress. Nonbelievers have more time! Since they are not wasting money or resources on the nonexistent supernatural world, nonbelievers have more ability to make
this
world a better place. (How do poor churchgoers explain to their hungry children that God needs the milk money more than they do?)
this
world a better place. (How do poor churchgoers explain to their hungry children that God needs the milk money more than they do?)
What kind of person would eternally torment an honest doubter? If their god is so unjust, then theists are in as much danger as atheists. Perhaps God will get a perverted thrill from changing his mind and damning everyone, believers and unbelievers alike.
Pascal was a Catholic and assumed that the existence of a god meant the Christian God. However, the Islamic Allah might be the true god, which turns Pascal’s Wager into a riskier gamble than intended.
I have my own bet: Barker’s Wager. Suppose there is a god, but he is only going to reward those people who have enough courage
not
to believe in him. This god is no less likely than Pascal’s. By believing in a god, Christians are risking eternal torture! When they die, they will be very surprised (so will we atheists).
not
to believe in him. This god is no less likely than Pascal’s. By believing in a god, Christians are risking eternal torture! When they die, they will be very surprised (so will we atheists).
In any case, basing belief in a deity on fear does not produce admiration. It does not follow that such a being deserves to be worshipped.
“God is a being than which no greater being can be conceived. If God does not exist in actuality, then he can be conceived to be greater than he is. Therefore, God exists.”
There are dozens of varieties of the ontological argument, but St. Anselm was the first to articulate it in this manner. The flaw in this reasoning is to treat existence as an attribute. Existence is a
given.
Nothing can be great or perfect that does not first exist, so the argument is backwards.
given.
Nothing can be great or perfect that does not first exist, so the argument is backwards.
A good way to expose this reasoning is to replace “being” and “God” with some other words. (“Paradise Isle is an island…”) You could prove the existence of a perfect “void,” which would mean nothing exists!
The argument squashes itself because God can be conceived to have infinite mass, which is disproved empirically. And it is comparing apples and oranges to assume that existence in conception can somehow be related to existence in actuality. Even if the comparison holds, why is existence in actuality “greater” (whatever that means) than existence in conception? Perhaps it is the other way around.
No wonder Bertrand Russell said all ontological arguments are a case of bad grammar!
“The bible is historically reliable. There is no reason to doubt the trustworthy testimonies that would hold up in court. God exists because He has revealed Himself through scriptures.”
The bible reflects the culture of its time. Though much of its setting is historical, much is not. For example, there is no contemporary support for the Jesus story outside the Gospels, which were anonymously written 30 to 80 years after the supposed crucifixion (depending on which scholar you consult—see Chapter 15.) Many accounts, like the creation stories, conflict with science. The stories of the bible are just that: stories.
The bible is contradictory. A glaring example is the discrepancy between the genealogies of Jesus given by Matthew and Luke. The story of the resurrection of Jesus, told by at least five different writers, is hopelessly irreconcilable. Scholars have noted hundreds of biblical errors that have not been satisfactorily addressed by apologists. (See Chapter 13 and Chapter 16.)
The bible, like other religious writings, can be accounted for in purely natural terms. There is no reason to demand it be either entirely true or false. Christianity is filled with parallels from pagan myths, and its emergence as a second century messiah cult stems from its Jewish sectarian origins. The Gospel authors admit they are writing religious propaganda (John 20:31), which is a clue that it should be taken with a grain of salt.
Thomas Paine, in
The Age Of Reason,
pointed out that scripture cannot be revelation. Revelation (if it exists) is a divine message communicated
directly
to some person. As soon as that person reports it, it becomes second-hand hearsay. No one is obliged to believe it, especially if it is fantastic. It is much more likely that reports of the miraculous are due to honest error, deceit or zealous theological interpretations of perfectly natural events.
The Age Of Reason,
pointed out that scripture cannot be revelation. Revelation (if it exists) is a divine message communicated
directly
to some person. As soon as that person reports it, it becomes second-hand hearsay. No one is obliged to believe it, especially if it is fantastic. It is much more likely that reports of the miraculous are due to honest error, deceit or zealous theological interpretations of perfectly natural events.
Outrageous claims require outrageous proof. A criterion of critical history is the assumption of natural regularity over time. This precludes miracles, which by definition “override” natural law. If we allow for miracles, then all documents, including the bible, become worthless as history. (See Part 3, “What’s Wrong With Christianity,” for more on the bible.)
“There are many scientists who believe in God. If many of the world’s most intelligent people are theists, then belief in God must be sensible.”
This is just an appeal to authority, which atheists could do equally well or better. Academics as a group are much less religious than the general population, and scientists as a group are the least religious of academics. Though it is easy to find token scientists who believe, none of them can scientifically demonstrate their faith. Belief is usually a cultural or personal matter separate from occupation and no one, not even a scientist, is immune from the irrational seductions of religion.
“The new science of quantum physics is showing that reality is uncertain and less concrete. There is now room for miracles. A theistic world view is not inconsistent with science.”
A miracle is supposed to be a suspension of natural law that points to a transcendent realm. If the new science makes miracles naturally possible (a self-contradictory concept), then there is no supernatural realm and no God.
In quantum physics, the term “uncertainty” does not apply to reality, but to our
knowledge
of reality. There is disagreement about “indeterminacy”—some think it is only in our minds, and others think nature is intractably indeterminate—but the only thing that can be “uncertain” is a mind.
knowledge
of reality. There is disagreement about “indeterminacy”—some think it is only in our minds, and others think nature is intractably indeterminate—but the only thing that can be “uncertain” is a mind.
Theism implies a supernatural realm. Science limits itself to the natural world. So theism can
never
be consistent with science, by definition (unless the god is defined as a natural being, which it rarely is).
never
be consistent with science, by definition (unless the god is defined as a natural being, which it rarely is).
“Belief in God is not intellectual. Reason is limited. The truth of God is only known by a leap of faith, which transcends but does not contradict reason.”
This is no argument. Admitting that something is nonintellectual removes it from the realm of discussion. Yes, reason
is
limited—it is limited to the facts. If you ignore the facts you are left with nothing but hypotheses or wishful thinking.
is
limited—it is limited to the facts. If you ignore the facts you are left with nothing but hypotheses or wishful thinking.
Faith
is the acceptance of the truth of a statement in spite of insufficient or contradictory evidence, and has never been consistent with reason. Faith, by its very invocation, is a transparent admission that religious claims cannot stand on their own two feet.
is the acceptance of the truth of a statement in spite of insufficient or contradictory evidence, and has never been consistent with reason. Faith, by its very invocation, is a transparent admission that religious claims cannot stand on their own two feet.
Sartre said that to believe is to know you believe; to know you believe is to not believe.
Even if theism were a consistent hypothesis (which it is not), it would still need to be proved. This is why most theists downplay
proof
and
reason
and emphasize
faith,
sometimes ludicrously claiming that science requires faith or that atheism is a religion.
proof
and
reason
and emphasize
faith,
sometimes ludicrously claiming that science requires faith or that atheism is a religion.
“There is strong evidence of psychic powers, reincarnation and such. You have to admit there is something out there!”
Most scientists disagree that there is strong evidence for “parascientific” claims. When carefully examined with rigid controls, these claims are generally exposed as misinterpretations or outright fraud. Even if they were legitimate, mysterious phenomena could have perfectly natural explanations. And even if they didn’t, they wouldn’t necessarily point to a god. In such cases, skeptics prefer to withhold judgment rather than jump to superstitious conclusions.
Other books
Afternoons with Emily by Rose MacMurray
The Cry for Myth by May, Rollo
Cipher by Rogers, Moira
The Rushers by J. T. Edson
Rome 2: The Coming of the King by M C Scott
Cherish & Blessed by Tere Michaels
Triple Dare by Lexxie Couper
Probed: The Encounter by Alexis Adaire
Galileo's Middle Finger by Alice Dreger
Parallel by Shana Chartier
