Bad Design
The faults in the design of the human eye, especially, show its evolutionary origins. [See
eye diagram of retina.] When we study
the retina at the back of the eye, we can see that the cell layers are backwards. Light has to travel thru
seven layers of cells before reaching the light sensing cells. Then the signals go back thru these layers
to the nerves on the inside surface. In addition, the blood vessels are on the inside surface and further
block the light. A truly intelligent designer could have done better than the human eye. Actually,
evolution did a better job with the eyes of birds (which have no blood vessels in the retina) and the octopus
and squid (which have the light sensing cells on the surface).
In fact, vision is so useful for survival that eyes have evolved independently at least twenty separate times,
with at least a dozen different designs.
Humans and other animals have many more examples of sub-optimal or bad design. Here are a few:
One of the worst designs in mammals is the nerve for the larynx, called the recurrent laryngeal nerve. It
is much longer than it needs to be — going from the brain into the chest, around the aorta, and back up to the larynx. In humans
it's about three feet too long, but in giraffes it's about fifteen feet longer than needed.
The human pelvis slopes forward, which was useful for our knuckle-walking ancestors. The only reason that we can walk
upright is because we have an incredible sharp bend at the base of our spines (which is the source for so much low back pain). Our
abdominal organs are even suspended from the spine, which is just a vestigial holdover from when the spine was actually above them.
The human baby's skull is too big, such that many women painfully die in childbirth if they don't get modern medicine.
Lab Experiments
Many people think that science requires lab experiments, which is a gross misunderstanding of science. The Theory of Evolution
doesn't need lab experiments for verification; it has the entire history of life on Earth. It is a bonus that successful lab experiments have
been done, using random mutation and survival of the fittest to create new bacteria. Scientists at the Brookhaven National Laboratory
developed new strains of bacteria that live in harsh environments
while consuming carbon-rich materials such as oil and coal. There are also
new strains of bacteria (using new enzymes) that can digest
byproducts of nylon manufacture.
A Bottom-Up Process
The Theory of Evolution explains embryological quirks, vestigial organs, and other bad designs. It also explains how order
and complexity (like eyes and new enzymes) can grow from simplicity. Over billions of years, evolution has resulted in the vast array of species
on our planet, with their many complex organs and traits. We understand how biological patterns emerge. Climbing Mount Improbable,
by Richard Dawkins, shows how highly intrinsically improbable features of organisms can come about thru very small (and possible) evolutionary
steps. Daniel Dennett explains, in Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life, how evolution is the central
organizing natural process that gives rise to complexity. Evolution doesn't require a top-down designer; it is a
bottom-up process that results in complexity and order naturally emerging from simplicity.
“Only a Theory”
People often say that evolution is “only a theory.” It’s important to
remember that the term “theory” in science is not the same as it is in general usage. A scientific theory
is a unifying concept that explains a large body of data. It is a hypothesis that has withstood the test
of time and the challenge of opposing views. The Theory of Evolution is the basic unifying concept
of biology. The CEO of The American Association for the Advancement of Science, Alan Leshner, wrote,
“Although scientists may debate details of the mechanisms of evolution, there is no argument among scientists as
to whether evolution is taking place.” The National Academy of Sciences, the most prestigious scientific organization
in the United States, has declared evolution “one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have,”
and notes that evolution is supported by an overwhelming scientific consensus. The Theory of Evolution has
as much validity as the theory of gravity, atomic theory, or the germ theory of disease. It's interesting to note
that the idea that the Earth goes around the sun is also a scientific theory — albeit one with extensive evidence. Every
day our eyes are deceived, when we see the sun rising and setting as it apparently goes around the Earth.
Evolution is thus both a fact and a theory. It is a fact that species have evolved. The
Theory of Evolution explains our best understanding of the processes that cause evolution. It's a
lot like gravity. Gravity is obviously a fact. The theory of gravity attempts to explain how
gravity works. Actually, we know less about how gravity works than how evolution works.
There is an underlying problem with the design argument, and most proponents of Intelligent Design
probably aren’t aware of it. By assuming that living things have some sort of metaphysical purpose, they are
intrinsically assuming what they want to prove. Purpose is an abstract human concept that exists only in our minds,
much like beauty — with no physical reality. In the universe things have no intrinsic purpose;
they just exist. Does an atom have any purpose? Does a pebble? Does a star? Does an
amoeba, plant or any living thing have a real external purpose? We could say that living things have
the purpose of procreating to continue their species. However, we must realize that this is just our
viewpoint, our interpretation. Rocks, trees, people, stars, and the universe have no intrinsic purpose. We
can create purpose for ourselves, and that is good because it's a useful concept; but it’s important to understand
that purpose is a human construct. Remember, when proponents of ID begin their arguments by noting the
design and purpose of nature, they are assuming what they want to prove. Don’t be fooled by this logic sleight
of hand. No intelligent designer is needed for purpose to exist, because purpose exists only in our minds.
Abiogenesis
Even more basic than evolution is the field of science called abiogenesis, which deals with the origins of life from
non-life. Simple experiments have shown that amino acids, the molecular units that make up proteins, can be made in lab conditions
simulating Earth’s early atmosphere, and they are even found in outer space. The other critical molecular types — lipids, carbohydrates,
and nucleotides — can also result from natural chemical processes. These molecules are not living, but abiogenesis scientists are
learning many ways that life could have originated from them.
Dr. Jack Szostak, winner of the 2009 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine,
has shown how primitive protocells could form with lipids as a cellular wall and a self-polymerizing nucleotide inside. These could
grow and divide driven purely by physics, chemistry, and thermodynamics. Evolution could take it from there.
Many abiogenesis researchers think that life or its precursors could have started as RNA, and then evolved to
DNA. A very interesting experiment showed that
life-like evolution can occur in a test tube, with synthesized RNA enzymes that can replicate themselves without the help of any proteins or
other cellular components. It's not biology, but it shows how evolutionary processes can happen in non-living molecules.
Remember that Earth had billions of years and countless environments to create life, while scientists have only been trying
since the 1950's. I think that we’ve made good progress. And, even if we're not smart enough to understand the origin
of life, that doesn't mean that some god did it.
For more, see articles and websites listed in our “Abiogenesis” science section.
Evolution of Our View of Our Place in the Universe
A basis for the creationism idea is the concept that humans are at the center of the universe. The idea of a god used
to make some sense, when people thought that the Earth was the unmoving center of creation, and humans were the reason that there was an
Earth and everything else. The biblical universe was much
simpler then. The flat Earth was at the base, and above was the vast solid dome called the firmament. It contained the stars and
held back the celestial waters. Above that were Heaven and God.
We now know that the universe is almost unimaginably immense, complex, and ancient. It is the
height of conceit for humans to believe that this whole universe was made just for us. Our perspective has
changed. We are no longer at the center of the universe — not our planet, not our star, and not our
galaxy. As people grow and mature, one of the big realizations is that they aren’t at the center. It
is the same for our species; it is time for us to realize that we are not at the center either.
It is also necessary to note that in order for Intelligent Design to be true, these areas of science
would be largely false: evolutionary biology, paleobiology, cosmology, astronomy, physics, paleontology, archeology,
historical geology, zoology, botany, and biogeography, plus much of early human history. These fields of
science make predictions and get results. ID makes no verifiable predictions and gets no useful results,
and thus cannot in any way be called a science. A simple example of this is the field of oil exploration,
where you won’t find any geologists using creationism or ID — because they don’t get results. And, with
large amounts of money at stake, the companies want results.
The most common reason people give for why they believe in God is the apparent design of the world. I think that
this is part of why proponents of ID are putting so much energy into promoting their view and attempting to refute evolution. They
realize that if the design argument were to fall, people might rethink their belief in God.
Many people say things like, “Isn't that baby cute?” or, “Isn't that sunset beautiful? There MUST
be a god.” I think that, if they are going to give their god credit for the apparent good and beauty in the world,
they should also give their god credit for the evil and ugliness — such as natural disasters, babies with birth defects,
and all the diseases. The morality of nature shows its evolutionary heritage. What loving, intelligent designer
would have invented the diseases of the world, including a parasite that blinds millions of people and a gene that covers
babies with excruciating blisters? This is part of the Problem of Evil, which I will cover later.
For more, see articles and websites listed in our “Evolution” science section.
Origin of Consciousness
Some people claim that consciousness is too mysterious or complex to be explained scientifically,
therefore a god is necessary. Consciousness certainly is complex, and we probably can't completely understand it —
in part because it is so subjective; but that doesn't mean that some god is its source any more that we need a god to
explain the weather. Consciousness is an emergent property of a sufficiently complex living brain. Anyone who
has had a mammal as a pet knows that animals can think and emote. They may not think as well as we do,
because their brains aren’t as complex as ours, but they definitely think and even dream. Biology also
shows us that many mammals have brains that are very similar to ours — differing only in sizes of the functional
sections. Even simple animals such as worms show a very limited consciousness by responding to their
environment. The more complex the brain, the more complex the consciousness. We also know that
when a person’s brain is damaged the person can lose part of his consciousness. The sad cases where the
brain is extremely damaged can result in a “persistent vegetative state” with no consciousness. A god isn’t
necessary to explain consciousness; functioning complex brains are.
Argument from Love
Where does love come from? Many religionists say that evolution can't explain love, that we
need a god as the source for love.
Evolution actually explains love very simply. In primitive hunter/gatherer human societies (and
even for many other mammals) it is strongly advantageous for a couple to stay together to raise their offspring. It's beneficial
even in modern societies, altho ** not as
critically. Without love a couple is less likely to stay together. Without love they would be far less
likely to keep raising their children when things are difficult. With love, children are more likely to be loving
themselves — to others and eventually to their own children. Love also helps bind extended families and friends,
who can help in raising the children. Any humans who didn't love were less likely to have descendants. Any
humans who did love were more likely to have descendants. Evolution has programmed us for love.
The feelings of love can certainly be wonderful, and they are created in our bodies by
hormones. One of these is oxytocin, which is produced during sex and in breastfeeding women. It acts as
a neurotransmitter in the brain and can create strong feelings of attachment and love.
Argument from Morality
How about morality? Some people say that we need an absolute morality, and that we all have a
sense of morality. They say that the only possible source for this morality is their god.
Many people have claimed that humans could not have created morality, that there is nothing in
evolution or history that mandates it. This is wrong. In order for any social species to function, implicit
or explicit rules of interaction are necessary. This is the basic function of morality — implicit rules of
interaction that allow us to function cooperatively.
Some have even claimed that humans could not have had the concept of morality. I don’t see why
not. We’re fairly intelligent. Human minds have created many ideas that are far more complex than
morality. Why should morality be different?
The idea that we humans didn't create morality — that it came from some god — is insulting to us.
Explaining morality and altruistic behavior is not a problem, when we understand that humans are social
animals. In order to survive, we mainly need to work together in groups. Groups of our distant ancestors
that had individuals who worked together were more likely to succeed. Individuals who didn't cooperate in a
group might have been kicked out of the group, and had their survival severely threatened. Groups that kept
non-cooperative individuals were less likely to succeed. Laws are the explicit rules of interaction. Morality
and laws are human constructs that come from basic human empathy, kindness and compassion, a desire to treat others as we wish
to be treated, and our need to work together — not from some ancient static scriptures. Morality and laws have evolved as
humans have evolved our culture. We are social animals evolved by natural selection, so the great majority of us will
naturally desire the health of our families and the peace of our communities. Evolution has programmed us socially and
biologically for morality and cooperation. Our morality comes out of our humanity.
For god-fearing religions, the only reason to be moral is the child's concept of morality — be good or
you will be punished. For healthy non-believers, we can see that altruistic behavior and morality grow out of the
knowledge that making others happy makes us happy.
Even other primates such as chimpanzees, monkeys, and apes exhibit empathy and morality. For
more about this, see “Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior.”
Of course, the natural world is not loving or moral, along with many humans. We thus have the
continual dilemma of how to survive with this conflict, using our natural self-interest.
If people claim that their god is the source of morality, they are faced with defining morality and
whether it is dependent on their god. Plato said it best, “Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral,
or is it moral because it is commanded by God?” If it's the former then God is not needed. If it's the
latter then morality depends on God's whim, and ethics are unnecessary.
Let’s look at what happens when people claim to get absolute morality from a god or his “holy” book. I say
that such religious absolutists don’t have morality; what they have is a code of obedience — which is not the same. This god
sets what is supposedly moral, and they obey. If this god were to say that murder and theft were moral, theists
would have to kill and steal to act morally. Actually, this is exactly what is happening with the suicide bombers
in the Middle East. This is also what was behind the Crusades, the Inquisitions and 9/11. The fact that
we find this so abhorrent shows that morality does not come from a god. Gods fail as a source of morality.
Many religious people like to claim that non-believers have relative morality,
while they have absolute morality. However, since no Christians or Jews are
stoning those who work on the Sabbath,
and no Muslims are slaying transgressors wherever they catch
them, they are choosing which “holy” laws to follow and which to ignore. We all have relative morality.
For Christians, if their morality is based on fear of punishment from their god then they have an
“out” where they can be absolved of their sins (usually by an appropriate Earthly authority). This is a good
marketing scheme, but it makes for flimsy moral system of punishment and reward.
Monotheistic religions typically define most or all of morality as dealing with humans and their “sins”
against their god. People are then moral to each other only to obey their god and escape his punishment. This ignores
the concept of morality that deals directly with the consequences of our actions on other people or conscious beings. This
morality is about the reality of our impact on others, not on our relationship with an imaginary god who can be appeased with
a few magic words.
A large philosophical problem that religious moralists face is where to get the word of their god or
gods. They can get it from “divine” revelation or from supposedly “holy” books. Each of these sources faces
a problem; how do we know that this is the true word of the god? I’ve already discussed revelation, so let’s
look at the idea of a holy book. I am most familiar with the Christian Bible, so that’s what I’ll address.
The Bible is touted by many as a source of ultimate knowledge and morality. It is
said to be God’s perfect words to humankind. Have you ever read it? It
contradicts itself in many places, is often difficult or
impossible to interpret, and is largely simply boring. Some of it looks to me like it was written under
the influence of hallucinogens. It contains two very different lists of
Ten Commandments (in three sets) and
three sets of paternal ancestors for
Jesus (with one lineage just being the Holy Ghost). The better-known set of Ten Commandments
(given in Exodus 20:2-17 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21) even says that
children can be punished for the sins of their
great-grandfathers! The lesser-known set (in Exodus 34:12-27) tells us to not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk. Are these the words of a perfect moral being?
The Christian Bible is conflicted about homosexuality. Altho there are notoriously
anti-gay verses, 1 Samuel 18:1-3 clearly refers to two men loving each
other. Even the Jesus character is hinted at as being gay in John 20:2. This shows that Christians have little
to stand on when they try to push their religion's view of sexuality on the rest of us. Their logic is based on the
primitive concept that we don't want to make their (all-loving?) god angry, or he's going to do something bad to us.
Many Christians think that the Bible supports “traditional” marriage. However, nowhere
does it clearly state “one man and one woman” or “monogamy” or any words to that effect, but references to
abstinence and polygamy are plentiful.
The Bible also has the purported histories of many rapes, slaughters, and other mass killings,
most of them directed or condoned by the god Yahweh. They even note how pregnant women were sliced open — so much for Yahweh being against
abortion. In one well-known story, Yahweh drowned almost everyone and everything on the planet merely because
he didn’t like the activities of some of the people (that he had created). In another story,
42 children were killed in the name of Yahweh,
just for calling a man bald. In addition, the Bible has more than 50 listings of death penalties — some for supposed “sins” that most of us
don’t even consider to be morally wrong, such as working on the Sabbath or eating blood. Do these tales
and penalties show the actions of a loving god? The god of the Old Testament is a capricious, petty,
pathological, vindictive, schizophrenic, mass-murdering tyrant — not a paragon of moral virtue. And,
Satan often comes off as the good guy. After all, how many people did Satan kill? The god of the New
Testament is a little nicer, as described by the character Jesus. But Jesus and this god also introduced eternal
punishment — not a very kind or loving thing to do. This New Testament god also kept the idea of a human blood
sacrifice, even demanding it of his own son. If you still think that morality should come from the Christian
Bible, I ask, what do you think about slavery and child abuse? Not once in the entire Bible is slavery or child
abuse (other than child sacrifice) condemned, not even in the writings about Jesus. In fact both are condoned in
many places; there are over 20 verses on slavery
and over 30 verses advocating child
abuse. Even the Jesus character had recommendations about whipping and chopping up slaves. It's
obvious that any kind person could do a better job of defining morals than what is in the Bible. The Christian
Bible, its god, and its savior all fail the morality test.
Jesus died for our sins. This is one of the primary moral points of Christianity, and it is
glorified human sacrifice, or formally known as atonement or substitutive sacrifice. Many religions have practiced
it when they killed sacrificial animals or humans on altars. What kind of morality is this, where an animal or person
has to die because of what others have done (or will do)? When we look at cultures that sacrificed humans, we call
them barbaric and primitive. It makes no difference if the person being sacrificed agrees; it is still blatantly,
repugnantly immoral and abominable. The Christian ceremony of communion is based on this blood sacrifice, and is just
ritualized cannibalism and vampirism. Note also that the Roman Catholic Church's doctrine of transubstantiation holds that
during communion the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Christ. This doctrine makes
Leviticus 7:27 problematic, because it calls for the execution of those who eat blood.
Using religion as a source for morality completely collapses when we look at religious positions now
and in history. There are religious people with different positions on such moral issues as the death penalty,
abortion, birth control, and gay and women’s rights. How can this be, if they all get the same divine words from
the same god? Restrictions on birth control have added to the misery in the world by causing more disease and more
births on a planet that already has too many people. Racism, misogyny, and slavery were once considered perfectly moral
by large portions of humankind, and were seen as having a religious basis. Also, the killings done in the names of
different gods, by most religions, are legendary. Our culture has changed, along with our laws, and these evils are
no longer acceptable in modern society. Religion cannot give us reliable answers to moral issues. Morality
is a social and legal construct, not a religious one. Religion and gods fail as sources of morality.
Argument from Authority
I think that most people begin their belief in a god because a book or someone said that a particular
god exists. This is called the “argument from authority.” The next section will discuss using people
as authorities. The three best known books used as sources for religions are the Quran for the Muslims,
the Bible for Christians, and the Torah for the Jews.
I've collected a few quotes from the Quran, to show some of its weaknesses.
The Christian Bible includes the Jewish Torah as part of its “Old Testament.” Is it a
reasonable source? We've already examined some of its moral faults. Let's look at its historical veracity.
People say that archeological evidence shows that some places and people mentioned in the Bible really
existed; therefore the Bible is true. This is like saying that Gone With the Wind is true
because the Civil War actually occurred. Let’s first look at four biblical personages —
Moses, Abraham, King Herod the Great, and Jesus — and the biblical town of Nazareth.
There is no reliable, extra-biblical reference to Moses or Abraham, and they are likely
apocryphal. In fact, there is no reliable evidence that the Jews/Israelites were ever in Egypt. Even Israeli
archaeologists have acknowledged this, (and Israel has the most to gain from a divine land grant). King Herod
the Great ruled from 39 to about 4 BCE. His supposed
“slaughter of the innocents” (Matthew 2:13-23) is not mentioned by any historian of the time (or even other gospel
authors), and is thus likely a complete fabrication which fulfilled a common story line for saviors.
Did Jesus Exist?
Like most people (especially those raised Christian, like I was), I had always assumed that Jesus had really existed,
even though he may not have been divine. After examining the biblical, extra-biblical, and early Christian evidence, I have
concluded that there is no reliable evidence that Jesus actually existed — and significant evidence that he was purely mythical.
The earliest known references to Jesus are in the writings of Paul (ne Saul), who had a 'vision' of Jesus while
he was on the road to Damascus. Paul's writings are part of the epistles, which were written after 50 CE*. If
there had been an actual Jesus, Paul should have known much about his life. He didn't. Paul and the
other epistle writers (including Peter) don't seem to have known any biographical details of Jesus' life, or even the time of
his earthly existence. They don't mention Bethlehem, Nazareth, Galilee, Calvary or Golgotha. They also don't mention
any miracles that Jesus was supposed to have worked, his baptism, his moral teachings, his trial, or the empty tomb.
The main biblical references to Jesus are in the gospels, which were written by unknown authors
after 70 CE (and quite possibly decades later). In a semi-literate and superstitious society, that's a long
time after Jesus' supposed life — a long time for myths to grow. Most scholars agree that the first mention
of what we call the gospels was by Justin Martyr in about 150 CE, altho he didn't refer to them by their current names. The
earliest gospel, now known as Mark, betrays its author's lack of knowledge of the geography and social situation of Palestine —
showing that the author was not a local. (Mark 5:1-13,
Mark 11:1, Mark 10:12) Why do Mark and John begin with Jesus
already a grown man — with no virgin birth, magic star, or other childhood stories? If the gospels were written by eyewitnesses,
why don't they describe Jesus? Why are they written in third person format (like a story), instead of first person format? Why do
the gospels of Matthew and Luke plagiarize up to 90% of Mark (and add the childhood stories)? The gospel of John
hardly refers to Jesus as a real person with a real life. Like Paul, the author viewed Jesus as more of a sky-god.
As for the extra-biblical historicity of Jesus, there is absolutely no reliable contemporary
evidence that he ever even existed. He made no impression on any historian of the first century. If Jesus existed
and if the spectacular events in the gospels really happened, they would have been noted by many writers — including
Philo of Alexandria, Seneca the Elder, Pliny the Elder, Justus of Tiberius, and over thirty others. None of these men
referred to Jesus or the fantastical biblical events. The earliest extra-biblical supposed references to Jesus
or Christ are in one paragraph and one sentence in the writings (about 93 CE) attributed to the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus
(who also wrote about Hercules), and the Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus (about 117 CE). However,
there is overwhelming evidence that they were added much later. The reference by Josephus was almost certainly created
by “church historian” Eusebius, who first referred to it in about 324 CE — for Emperor Constantine's Council of Nicea. The
reference by Tacitus was probably added in the 1400's (likely in 1468 by Johannes de Spire of Venice), because no mention is made
to it in any known text prior to then.
The Jesus story also shows extensive similarities to other myths of the time (especially Dionysus, Mithra, and Horus). Some
early Christians attributed this to Satan who went back in time and created the religions that "copied" Christianity. Jesus is worshiped
on Sunday because he is a sun god, like Mithra, Zeus/Jupiter, Horus, Attis, Dionysus, Adonis, Tammuz, Hercules, Perseus, Bacchus, Apollo,
Helios, and Sol Invictus — whose birthdays are also on the old winter solstice of December 25, when the sun is “reborn.” There were
more than a dozen other deities and saviors who were resurrected after violent deaths — Mithra, Osiris/Serapis, Inanna/Ishtar, Horus,
Perseus, Bacchus, Attis, Hermes, Adonis, Hercules/Heracles, Tammuz, Asclepius, and Prometheus. Christianity just told the story the best,
and managed to get control of the government under Constantine.
So, let's look at the evidence we have. From the earliest Christian writers such as Paul,
we have little to indicate that Jesus was a real person. And, we have strong evidence that he was
just a spiritual sky-god to them. From the later (and unknown) writers of the
gospels, we have a story that grew over time, with more fantastical events added as the story was told and re-told
— just like a myth. From the historians of the first century we have nothing. Nothing.
For a deeper look into these ideas, see "Did Jesus Really Exist?".
It's also interesting that the Prophet Muhammad may not have actually
existed. Muhammad Sven Kalish, an Islamic
theologian, came to that conclusion after he studied the historical evidence for the prophet's life.
Science vs. Religion
One large difference between science and religion is this: In science, if the facts don’t fit the theory,
the theory is modified or tossed out. In religion, if the facts don’t fit the theory, the facts are often tossed out. All
too often, people reject evidence and the findings of science because they conflict with their religious assumptions. With their
minds thus unhinged from the real world, they can have problems distinguishing fantasy from reality.
What does it mean, when we believe something based on an authority? It means that we are
taking something or someone else’s words as truth, without a real knowledge ourselves. We all do this for many
subjects. Our first authorities are the people who raise us. This is because we are born with no innate
knowledge of the world, and have to learn it from scratch. To help us learn quickly, our brains are wired in
childhood to largely believe without question what we are taught. We quickly absorb whatever our parents teach
us — including their religion. For most people, their parents' religion thus becomes the “one true religion” — as
most of us know from experience and as shown by many studies.
We soon start learning from other sources, such as friends, teachers, books and other written
material. As we learn and experience our world, we develop a map in our minds of what the world is like. This
map becomes a truth filter. When we look at a new idea, we typically compare it to the mental map that we
have. If the idea fits well in the map, we can add it. If the idea doesn’t fit, we have a problem. We
must either discard the idea, or make a change to the map. Change is difficult and often painful, so many people
tend to discard ideas that don’t fit their mental maps.
When we use someone or something as an authority, we often bypass the comparison process and plug the
new ideas directly into our maps. This can save us a lot of research time and mental work. However, it also
opens us to believing in things and ideas that aren’t true. Since we can’t be experts on everything, we thus have
a problem — what and whom can we implicitly believe? For me, since I want my mental map to be as accurate as
possible, I have chosen the methods of science and reason as my ultimate authority. Science and reason have been
shown to be the best predictors of how the world functions. Science and reason aren’t perfect, but they are
self-correcting — using the scientific method. Other sources of authority are
too prone to misinformation.
Altho we should not use them as authorities, it's interesting that 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences do not believe in God.
Argument from Prophesy and Miracles
Now, let’s discuss prophesy and miracles. I am continually astounded at just how little
evidence people are willing to accept for proof of these. Prophesies that did come true are often easy to explain,
once you understand that it’s easy to predict something if it has already occurred, or that actions were done merely
to fulfill prophesy, or that events or prophesies were fabricated. There are also many prophesies that haven’t
come true. As for religious miracles, the evidence is so slim that they should be relegated to hearsay.
One ‘miracle’ that many people use is their own survival from a dangerous episode, or recovery from
a disease or injury. They rarely seem to note that many others have not been so lucky. It's as if their god
loves only them (and perhaps their family), and doesn't care about the others. Of course, we never hear
from people who almost survived a car wreck, airplane crash, or disease; we only hear from those who
survive. I call this the “survivor's fallacy.”
Even if truly inexplicable ‘prophesies’ or ‘miracles’ have occurred, that does not mean that
there’s a god. It could just mean that a person has peculiar skills or technological help that we don’t
understand. We all can imagine how easy it would be to go to a primitive tribe of humans and impress them
with ‘god-like’ skills that are the result of our technology, medicine, or knowledge. It is reasonable to
consider that we could be fooled by technology that is far in advance of our own. As famous science fiction
author Sir Arthur C. Clarke wrote, “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”
Let’s consider one well-known ‘miracle,’ the resurrection of Jesus Christ. First, as I noted,
there is no verifiable evidence that Jesus ever even lived. Second, even if he did exist, there is obviously no
evidence that he actually died on the cross. If Jesus didn't die, his supposed ‘resurrection’ was much more possible in a purely
natural sense. Some people think that the martyrdom of his followers proves the resurrection of Jesus. At best, it simply
proves their bull-headed beliefs, not actual fact. At worst, they were fictional characters or deluded people. Recent examples
of deluded followers are the Jonestown and Heaven's Gate mass suicides. We don't think that they proved anything.
As I've noted, the story of Jesus’ lineage is also confusing. If Joseph didn’t father Jesus,
then why does the Bible show Joseph’s ancestors — with two different lists? The historical reason for the conflicting stories
of Jesus' lineage lies in the fact that the idea of the virgin birth (with the “Holy Ghost” as the father) was added
later. The original story had Jesus descended from David (thru Joseph), to fulfill prophesy.
Another prophesy that was supposedly fulfilled by the character Jesus was the idea that he came
from Nazareth. This resulted from an unknown gospel writer's confusion between
Nazirite, Nazarene and Nazareth.
I've found three excellent quotes that sum up the problem of prophesy and miracles well:
“No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle unless that testimony be of such a kind
that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavours to establish.”
— David Hume, Of Miracles (1748)
“Is it more probable that nature should go out of her course, or that a man should tell a lie? We
have never seen, in our time, nature go out of her course; but we have good reason to believe that millions of lies have
been told in the same time; it is, therefore, at least millions to one, that the reporter of a miracle tells a lie.”
— Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason (1794)
“It is a fact of history and of current events that human beings exaggerate, misinterpret, or wrongly
remember events. They have also fabricated pious fraud. Most believers in a religion
understand this when examining the claims of other religions.”
— Dan Barker, in "Did Jesus Really Rise From The Dead?"
With these insights in mind, which is more likely — that true prophesies and miracles have
actually occurred, or that they are just tall tales?
Argument from Religious Faith
Next, let’s look at religious faith. What is faith? It is the firm belief in something
for which no proof exists — simply because you want it to be true. The Bible, in Hebrews 11:1, gives this definition:
“Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.” Religious faith is not inhibited
by reason or evidence, does not help us discern the difference between truth and falsehood, and can thus be used to
justify any proposition. As Mark Twain once said, “Faith is believing what you know ain’t so.” Religious
faith proves nothing, except the bullheadedness of the believer. If you have faith, you don’t need proof. If
you have proof, you don’t need faith. Therefore, any attempt to use faith as a basis for proof is intrinsically
doomed to failure. Also, what good is faith if it has you believing in something that is not
true? A recent example of absolute faith and its possible consequences illustrates the objective
failures of religious faith. I ask, on September 11, 2001, whose faith was the most effective? I say
that it was the faith of the suicidal pilots of those three planes that crashed into the buildings. If you
believe in the primacy of religious faith, there is no way to objectively differentiate between yours and theirs,
for it is all purely subjective. Religious faith fails as a proof for a god.
Dan Barker, of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, wrote,
“If faith is a valid tool of knowledge, then anything can be true 'by faith,' and therefore nothing is true. If the
only reason you can accept a claim is by faith, then you are admitting that the claim does not stand on its own merits.”
If there were one true god, there should be one true religion — and it's obvious that this isn't true. The
theistic world is divided into several different main religions, each of which is divided into smaller groups. And, many of
those are divided into even smaller groups. The Christian faith, for instance, is divided into over 33,000 denominations.
Religious faith is the antithesis of rational thought. This is why so many religious leaders
actively preach against rational thought and even advanced education. They realize that rational thought and
education can destroy religious faith and result in fewer followers and less money for them. They know that
children are best indoctrinated — before the brain is developed enough to separate fantasy from reality.
Many good theists think that they can have both religious faith and rational thought, by being
moderates and not fundamentalists. Altho this certainly makes for a better pluralistic society, moderates enable
the fundamentalists by preventing rational examination of religion, which the moderates and the fundamentalists would
lose. Also, the fundamentalists often view themselves as the true followers of the faith. They see the
moderates as religious failures because they don't really follow the edicts of the religion, but mix in secular/worldly
values. And, even Jesus didn't like moderates.
These good theists often think that they can integrate their all-loving god with the reality of evolution. Altho this
is not antagonistic to science because no sufficiently hidden god can be disproved by science, the idea fails theologically. Evolution
is often a nasty, brutal process. An all-loving, all-powerful god could certainly do better.
Logical Arguments for God(s)
How about logical arguments for the existence of God? Let’s look at a set of proofs for God that
relies on reason alone. It is called the Ontological Argument, and it comes in at least three forms. The
first basically says that God exists because we can conceive of God. One of the characteristics of God is existence;
therefore, God exists. The second form begins with the definition that God is perfect. Existence is more
perfect than non-existence (whatever that means), therefore God must exist. The third form defines God as the
creator of the universe. Since the universe exists, God must exist. These arguments are so obtuse and
unfalsifiable that they are ridiculous. They just involve confusion between the existence of ideas and the
existence of real things. Simply saying that something like a god exists does not make it exist. All
that exist are the ideas (in our minds) of Satan, Jesus, God, or an invisible pink unicorn.
There are some people who claim that God is the source of logic, therefore we can’t even use logic
without presupposing the existence of God. They say that logic can’t be created from unformed matter; therefore
God formed the matter and created logic. This argument is known as Presuppositionalist, or the
Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God. The names are fancy, and my response is
simple. We made the rules of logic up, just like we made up the rules of mathematics. Logic is a pattern of thinking,
and patterns can emerge from simple rules. There are many
examples of complex patterns coming out of simple rules, such as snowflakes and waves forming. There is
nothing in our everyday experience that indicates that some higher power is necessary for these patterns, and
there is nothing that proves that a god is necessary for the patterns we call logic. Additionally, the
Presuppositionalist Argument gives little indication as to the qualities of the god it presupposes — much like
the First Cause and Ontological arguments. The Presuppositionalist Argument is just another way of
answering a supposedly difficult question with the simple response, “God did it.”
If anything is not logical, it is most religions. I am most familiar with Christianity, so let’s look at its basic claims:
- A supernatural god exists that created everything and intervenes in the natural world.
- This god had a son whose mother was a virgin who had been impregnated by the god in the form of a ghost.
- This son did many miracles, including making a dead person alive again.
- This son was killed, and came back to life one and a half (not three) days later.
There is not any empirical, verifiable evidence for any of this. There is also much experience
from everyday life that virgins can’t get pregnant from ghosts, and that people who have been dead for a while
can’t come back to life. Thus, belief in the above claims is illogical.
Pascal’s Wager
There is an argument for belief in God that is called Pascal’s Wager, named for Blaise Pascal who
conceived it. The argument goes like this: Either there is a god or there isn’t. If you believe in God,
and God exists, then you win big time and go to Heaven. If you don’t believe in God, and God exists, you lose big
time and go to Hell. If there is no god, then you haven’t lost much by believing. So the obvious choice
is to believe in God, because it’s simply the best bet.
Pascal’s Wager has several faults. The biggest problem is that it’s not a proof of any god’s
existence; it’s just an argument for believing, a method of extorting the gullible thru fear. Like many other
such arguments we have discussed, it also fails to denote exactly which god it refers to. Pascal’s Wager could
be applied to any god that offers rewards and punishments. Taken to the extreme, following the wager would necessitate
betting on the god with the worst hell, so it could be avoided. It's impossible to know which god to worship, and which
(perhaps jealous) gods to spurn. I doubt if many Christians would convert to Islam if the wager were presented by a Muslim
who told them that Muslim Hell is worse than Christian Hell and Muslim Heaven is better than Christian Heaven.
Pascal’s Wager assumes that the chosen god's mind is knowable, and that he doesn't mind people
believing in him for explicitly selfish reasons. Perhaps he actually prefers independent thinkers such as atheists,
not obsequious followers. Since the Christian god Yahweh is on record as having lied, there's no way to know his intentions. It would be
quite possible for a true believer to discover on Judgment Day that the destination was not Heaven. Yahweh, in his
infinitely mysterious ways, had other plans; and there would be no appeal or debate with an omnipotent being.
Another problem with Pascal’s Wager is that it implicitly assumes that the odds of the two possibilities are
similar. Since the odds of the Christian, Jewish, or Muslim god existing are zero, the wager creates a false dilemma. The
wager even goes against the doctrine that many religions have where gambling is sinful. Note also that the existence of the wager
and the fact that so many people think that it's relevant illuminate the lack of actual evidence for God.
Pascal’s Wager also depends on the idea that you don’t lose much by believing. This has been
false for many who have trusted in their god for help or guidance, instead of seeking reality-based solutions. People
have fought, killed and died for their belief in their god. Far too many have died because they (or their parents)
chose prayer instead of medicine. Swords, bullets, poison,
and poisonous snakes have killed many who thought that they were protected by their god. Even without these more
dramatic effects, believers often devote significant time, energy and money to worshipping their god.
Beliefs in a god (and the often concomitant ideas of divine punishment and reward) too often make people more
willing to accept inequalities in this life. Low-paid factory workers and slaves were taught that their rewards were in
the afterlife, so they should be meek and obedient in this life to ensure their (imaginary) rewards. Even the factory and
slave owners could think that they were part of their god's divine plan, and thus deserved their earthly rewards.
God-belief has real expenses that can be large or destructive.
The last problem with Pascal’s Wager is that it completely ignores and even denigrates intellectual
integrity and honesty; the wager assumes that people can believe something just because they want to. As an example,
let’s talk about belief in Santa Claus. Don’t we have more respect for a child who figures out that Santa doesn’t exist,
and says so, rather than continuing to lie so he can get more presents? It’s a sign of growing integrity and maturity for
children to stop believing in Santa. Similarly, adults can give up belief in a god when they realize that there’s no
real evidence for their god. Christians can quit being “sheep” or “children of god” and become intellectually honest.
The loss of intellectual integrity and honesty engendered by Pascal’s Wager gives some insight into how apparently rational
people can behave so irrationally. By accepting the wager, they have (perhaps implicitly) given up these important traits.
Comfort, Meaning, and Emotion
I think that many people continue to believe in a god because it gives them comfort; it’s an
emotional response. It allows them to pray to their god and think that they’re actually accomplishing
something. It gives them feelings of structure and meaning in their lives, and makes them feel connected. It
helps remove the fear of death and nonexistence that most of us experience. Belief in the Christian god helps
remove people’s fear of Christian Hell that has been pounded into their minds. Belief in a god also makes
the world more black and white, less confusing, and easier to deal with. But, is this any actual proof for the
existence of a god? Is comfort a good indicator of the truth of external reality? I don’t think that
it is, any more than the reality that astrology is not true simply because people find comfort in it. The universe
does not owe us comfort and meaning; we create them ourselves. George Bernard Shaw said it best. “The fact
that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a
sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.”
Freud noted that religions are narcotizing. I think that addicts will do or think almost
anything to continue getting their fix. Some people eventually see that freedom from religious addiction
is an intellectually and emotionally healthy change, although withdrawal can be painful.
How Belief in God Affects Our World
This question about the existence of a god is not merely a philosophical exercise; it has pertinent applications
to the world in which we live. I will talk about five areas — history, education, politics, medicine, and everyday life.
God and History
Millions of people have been killed in the name of some god, and most wars have had religion as a central cause
(usually with God backing both sides). The American Civil War had leaders and ministers on both sides telling their followers
that God was with them, with southern preachers reminding their flocks that God was in favor of slavery. More recently, the leaders
on both sides in WWII exhorted their people that God was on their side, and used religion to unite them.
Religion was explicitly behind the Crusades, the Inquisitions, and the mass killings of “witches” and heretics. Many
of these heretics were only guilty of expressing ideas that the churches didn't like, but are commonly accepted now in science and social
reform. With the threat of heresy, the churches effectively set back humankind's scientific and social advancement by hundreds of
years. Religion is also at the root of most of today's international problems. Just imagine how much more peaceful the world
would be without beliefs in gods causing so much strife.
God and Education
In education, at the same time that we have a rise of fundamentalist religions in the U.S., the youth
of America are scoring lower on scholastic tests. Now, cause and effect are obviously difficult to establish for
this; but it must be harder for many of them learn to think rationally when they are taught, by their parents or religious
schools, such irrational concepts as creationism and invisible, immaterial beings. Also, as I already noted,
many religious leaders actively preach against rational thought and even advanced education.
Here are some disturbing statistics, partly from a
2004 CBS News Poll, a
2004 Gallup poll,
and a Gallup poll of U.S. teenagers.
- 81% of U.S. teenagers think that God controlled or influenced the origin of humans. (Gallup)
- 65% of Americans think that we should teach both creationism and evolution in schools. (CBS)
- 55% believe that “God created humans in present form.” (CBS)
- 45% believe that the world is less than 10,000 years old. (Gallup)
- 37% think that we should teach just creationism in schools, including 60% of evangelical Christians. (CBS)
- 36% believe in telepathy.
- 35% say that evolution is well supported by the evidence. (Gallup)
- 35% say that evolution is not well supported by the evidence. (Gallup)
- 25% believe in astrology.
- 25% think the sun goes around the Earth.
- 13% think that Joan of Arc was Noah’s wife.
- 13% accept the standard scientific account of evolution, without a god’s involvement. (CBS)
Belief in an omnipotent deity allows people to use sloppy logic and not have to think very hard. If they
are faced with a difficult question about why an event occurred, all they have to say is, “God did it.” Then the
reason behind the event is a mystery. This is the old “god of the gaps” answer, and it's an intellectual
cop-out. It answers nothing; it predicts nothing; and it teaches nothing. To counter this we
must ensure that scientific naturalism and critical thinking skills are taught in our schools. As students
understand better how the world works, their personal gods of the gaps will diminish. If we want to have a
strong democracy, our students and future voters must understand the basic facts of the world around us, in order to
make informed decisions. If we want to continue leading the world in science, medicine, and engineering,
we must make sure that our students learn real science — not religious pseudoscientific nonsense.
God, Politics, and Government
Ever since a tribal leader or medicine man discovered the power of mixing religion and group
leadership, religion and government have been intertwined. If followers can be made to believe that they have
an immortal soul that can go to Heaven, then the leader just needs to convince them that their heavenly
destination is assured if they obey his laws or fight his battles. Fearless warriors are hard to
vanquish. Plus, other tribes can be conquered — spreading the religion like a virus.
God bless America. We’ve all heard it countless times, especially from politicians. It
is a very dangerous concept, for it can give leaders the arrogance and invulnerability of supposedly divine backing
where they can do no wrong. It can also give them the idea that they have the responsibility to impose
their religious and political beliefs on U.S. citizens and on other countries — whether wanted or not.
The Roman leaders used to allow any religion (as long as it didn't interfere with the state), but they required that
every Roman citizen pray to the Roman gods, to ensure victory for their armies. Here’s a quote from the
Roman philosopher Seneca the Younger (5 BCE - 65 CE):
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as false,
and by the rulers as useful."
Does this sound familiar? U.S. politicians keep pulling their god and religion into
politics. Former President George W. Bush’s mangling of the wall separating state and church is well
documented. In 1954, when President Eisenhower signed the bill adding “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance,
his words explicitly showed that the idea was to link religiosity and patriotism. In 1988 President Reagan
established the National Day of Prayer. On March 27, 2003, House Resolution 153 passed by an overwhelming
vote. It urged the President to issue a proclamation “designating a day for humility, prayer, and fasting for all
people of the United States.” We are “to seek guidance from God to achieve a greater understanding of our own
failings,” and “to gain resolve in meeting the challenges that confront our nation.” The Senate unanimously
passed a similar bill. These government actions violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the First Amendment. I
say that the U.S. is becoming a de facto theocracy. Do you agree?
Religion has entered policies of the U.S. federal government. Faith-based groups are receiving
billions of federal dollars, with little or no oversight. Federally sponsored sex education courses often follow
Christian ideas, and don't teach facts that would help our youth deal with their sexuality. The FDA has based
rulings concerning contraception on religious grounds, despite contradicting findings from their science boards and
even the will of a vast majority of the U.S. population. Former President George W. Bush used his first veto to
block funding of stem cell research, because of his religious views.
Religion has even entered into laws of most of the U.S. states. Nine states
discriminate against atheists in their constitutions, with seven states prohibiting atheists from holding office. One state even
prohibits atheists from testifying in court. Six states still have anti-blasphemy laws. Fortunately, these laws aren't
generally followed. Many states prohibit same-sex marriage, based on religious ideas. Thirty-nine states allow
religious exemptions from child abuse or neglect charges, while thirty-one states allow a religious defense to a criminal
charge, and nineteen states allow a religious defense for felony crimes against children. Parents can beat their
children or allow them to die without needed medical help, and then basically claim, “God said I could.” Where is the
vaunted pro-life zeal of many Christians? Or, does it only apply to what they call “pre-born” children?
A basic source of incompatibility between religion and democracy lies in how each deals with
points of view that disagree. Religion is usually based on divisive absolutes like right and wrong,
good and evil, God and Satan, us and them. Democracy needs to be based on compromise. This is why
democracy functions best when religion and its divisiveness are kept out of government.
True freedom must give us the ability to do and say what many others may disagree with, or freedom
means little. It’s always easy to allow people to do what you agree with; the real test of freedom comes when
people say or do what you disagree with. This is another reason why religion must be kept out of a democratic
government. Few religions grant other than mild disagreement — often branding critical or disliked ideas and
people as heretical. Democracy, however, thrives best when people are willing to openly disagree.
Many religious and political leaders say that our freedoms and liberties come from God. I say
that freedoms in a society do not exist without the ability to enforce them. In the U.S. this power originates in
our Constitution and is implemented by our officials enforcing it. In many ways, we can say that our government
created our freedoms. If God is the source of freedom, why was there so little of it before our nation was
formed? And, why does it take a government to enforce that freedom?
Before the U.S. was founded, most governments and religions worked together to stay in power — limiting
whatever rights and freedoms the common people might try to obtain. The concept of a religion actually
promoting the rights of the individual is a relatively recent development.
It’s important to remember that the U.S. was founded as the first country that derived its power from
a purely secular, nonreligious basis. All nations before then had kings and queens who often used their supposed
“God-given divine right” to rule. Instead of this top-down power structure, our founders wisely
created a government that derived its powers from the consent of the governed. This is why our
Constitution begins with “We the People...”
The United States was also founded in direct contradiction to the Christian concept of submission to the current government,
as put forth in Romans 13:1-7. These verses are a biblical source of the divine right of rulers,
and state that God established the authorities — so rebelling against them is rebelling against God. Fortunately, our founding fathers
were more interested in human rights than the rights of the Christian god and his minions.
Our nation’s founders also realized the inherent divisiveness of religion and the many bloody wars
that had been fought over religion, and kept it specifically out of our Constitution and government. God is not even
mentioned in our Constitution. Religion is only mentioned twice — both times to keep religion and government
separate. The Treaty of Tripoli, written during the administration of President George Washington, signed by
President John Adams, and unanimously approved by the Senate, stated, “The Government of the United States is not
in any sense founded on the Christian religion.” How could we as a nation have forgotten such an important fact?
Many Christians are still trying to make the United States a Christian nation. They will point
out that many of our founding fathers were religious, and that “God” and “Creator” are mentioned in the Declaration
of Independence. What they don’t mention is the fact that the religion of some of the founding fathers
was deism (not Christianity), the fact that the Declaration of Independence refers to “Nature’s God” (a
deistic god, not the Christian god), and the fact that the Declaration of Independence is not a basis of our
government; the Constitution is. What these Christians also won't mention is that, altho the founders were
largely religious, they saw the wisdom in separating government and religion.
It’s often said that the phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the
Constitution. The phrase originated with Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, when
he wrote, “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their
legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus
building a wall of separation between church and state.” This was in a letter to a Baptist church, to reassure them
that the U.S. would keep religion and government separate. The Baptists were painfully aware of that danger, because
of their own recent experiences of not being the favored religion in some states and other countries. Supreme
Court Justice Harry Blackmun said it best. “A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons
are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some.”
Christians sometimes claim that our government is based on the Bible. They fail to note that nowhere in the
Bible is there any reference to democracy, trial by jury, Habeas Corpus, civil rights, woman’s rights, or freedom of religion
(which is specifically forbidden). What we find in the Bible are slavery, genocide, rape, incest, murder, misogyny, and bigotry.
Many people claim that the atheism of Nazi and Communist countries shows the supposed evils of atheism. For
Nazism we must note that Germany was largely Christian, their
army and badges had Christian themes, and even
Adolf Hitler said he was Catholic and followed Christ. Also, in the
1930's and 40's Germany was paying the Vatican about $100 million per year, having mutually signed a concordat in 1933. It's easy to
conclude that this money helped persuade the pope from doing anything substantial about the Holocaust or other crimes perpetrated by the
Nazis. It's also astounding that no German leader was excommunicated from the Catholic Church because of the
Holocaust or WWII (altho propaganda minister Goebbels was excommunicated for marrying a divorced Protestant woman). The best response
about Communism comes from Christian historicity researcher David Fitzgerald. “Atheism is nothing more than a conclusion. There
are plenty of people in this world who are atheists, but this doesn't mean we share values. Communism is a perfect example. Communism
is for all practical purposes, a political religion: It is totalitarian, it venerates its sainted founders, it has sacred dogma that cannot be
challenged; it persecutes its heretics, it does not brook disobedience, it feels no compunction against twisting science for its own
means. Even its touted 'atheism' is simply a defensive reaction against its rival religions. It has nothing in common with the
free thought of Paine or Jefferson, or the humanism of Dawkins or Einstein.”
It's often argued that leaders who used Christianity or Islam to further evil ends didn't really believe in God or Jesus or Allah
or the Prophet Muhammad, and weren't “true Christians” or “true Muslims.” This is known as the “no true Scotsman” logical fallacy. Note
that it really doesn't matter what these leaders truly believed; what matters is what their followers thought they believed.
The basic precept of Christianity, that Jesus sacrificed himself for a greater good, can be a powerful model for children
and soldiers to emulate. And, there are biblical verses
that support a war-like Jesus. Islam has war and killing more firmly embedded in its “holy” book, with the Prophet Muhammad portrayed
as a warring earthly leader. Islam adds to the image of self-sacrifice with promises of greater heavenly
rewards to those who die in the name of their faith. The Quran is also full of threats against
unbelievers, justifying war against them.
When religion, Communism, Nazism, racial purity, or other dogmatic ideas are combined with government, just about
anything can be justified “for a higher cause.” This is why democracy must be kept free of religion and other dogma.
Many people think that it is beneficial for most people in a society to believe in a creator —
that the more faithful a society is, the more likely it is to be safe and peaceful. However, a
2005 study by Gregory S. Paul shows
that a high level of religious belief correlates with more crimes and other social problems. From the study's abstract: “Large-scale
surveys show dramatic declines in religiosity in favor of secularization in the developed democracies... Data
correlations show that in almost all regards the highly secular democracies consistently enjoy low rates of societal dysfunction,
while pro-religious and anti-evolution America performs poorly.” Here's a review of the study.
Atheism works well for free societies. Free nations with high levels of atheism — such
as Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Australia, Switzerland and Japan — are among the healthiest, wealthiest, most
educated, and most free societies on Earth. Sweden, with a population that is least likely to go to church,
has the lowest crime rate in the industrialized world. Denmark, estimated to be between 43% and 80% atheists
and agnostics, is listed as the happiest nation in the results of a 2008 poll by The World Values Surveys. It's
also interesting that Denmark legalized gay marriages in 1989.
God, Medicine, and Science
Let’s look at religion and medicine. Religious leaders have consistently come out against medical
advances. Hundreds of years ago they were against autopsies and medical use of cadavers for research. In
the 1800’s Christians fought the use of anesthetics on the ground that suffering is God’s will and therefore
must be endured. This was particularly true for a woman’s pain during childbirth, because they could
quote the Bible to support their position. Some
religious groups prohibit life-saving blood transfusions (because of a biblical death penalty for those who eat blood). Children die every
year because their parents withhold medical treatment, trusting in their god instead. Many religious leaders
attempt to prevent access to birth control, disease prevention,
and information about sexuality. They act as though they would prefer to see people sick or dying of disease or
starvation, rather than allow the population to have “forbidden” products and information. Recently some have
come out against very promising areas of medicine, such as fetal cell research, stem cell research, and therapeutic
cloning. For a while in the U.S. they convinced the government that these areas of research should be prohibited or
severely limited. This has real implications for reducing the possible medical treatments available for each of
us and our descendants, and for tens of millions of people in the world who have spinal cord injuries and diseases such
as Parkinson's. Not all religions want this research limited; but many do, and they fail the medical test.
Many religions teach that a fertilized human egg should be accorded all the protections of a fully
developed human being. This position — that a cell that can barely be seen without a microscope is equivalent to
a human — could only be religiously based. Many Christians believe that abortion is wrong, supposedly based on their
Bible's commandment against killing. However, the Bible defines
being alive as breathing; since fetuses don't breathe, they are not defined as alive — and thus could not be killed. This
“holy” book notes that fetuses and young babies have at most a monetary value, but no moral value, and even has
stories of pregnant women being ripped open, with Yahweh's blessings.
It's important to note that about half of all fertilized human eggs don't result in a birth. Thus, nature
(or an all-powerful god, if you will) is the greatest 'abortionist' of all. If “life begins at conception” then most women who
are sexually active, fertile, and not using birth control could be defined as killers. Some religions make this even more
problematic by calling “artificial” birth control a sin — making women have almost impossible choices between their innate sexuality
and the possibility of an unwanted pregnancy. Forcing women — especially if they've been raped — to have children that they don't
want means that the women are little more than incubators. We can't legally force somebody to donate blood to save somebody else;
it thus makes no sense to legally force a woman to continue a pregnancy that she doesn't want.
The problem of a pregnancy resulting from rape also points out a philosophical weakness in the position of many who are
against abortion. If they would allow abortion in the case of rape, then they are ignoring the basic precept of the anti-abortion
position — that the fetus is more important than the mother.
There's also the religious problem of souls in identical twins (which result from a single fertilized egg splitting). Does
each twin get half a soul, or are there now two souls? And, what about when the two eggs recombine (which occasionally happens)?
A simple rejoinder to the “life begins at conception” religious mantra is to say that life doesn't begin at conception;
it began billions of years ago and we just hand it down.
This all has an effect of trying to control women. Sam Harris has an insightful article on this,
“God's Hostages.”
One of the real evils that I see in both Islam and Christianity is that they take pre-hormonal kids
and teach them that sex and even thinking about sex are wrong (much like murder is wrong). Then the hormones hit,
and the kids will think that they are sinful and evil. Unfortunately for them, their religion has the solution
— prostration before their god and further dedication to the religion. It's an effective and sick process.
Most religions base their beliefs on a “holy” book or interpretations of the holy book by their religious
leaders. Because the holy book is fixed, it cannot change to account for advances in our understanding of the world, or changes
in our morality (such as the morality of slavery). Religions thus have an intrinsic goal of resisting change or even returning
to a supposedly better past. Science, however, has as its pre-eminent goal the improved knowledge of the world and
universe. This conflict has been played out almost countless times. Galileo's problems with the Catholic Church are classic
examples. More recently, all the resistance to the Theory of Evolution is religiously based. We have also seen governments
reduce funding for scientific research into areas that some religionists disagree with, such as global warming. How far could
humankind have advanced by now if not for the hindrance of religion?
God and Everyday Life
Let’s look at God and everyday life. If there really were a personal god, the existence of this god would be an
obvious fact in the universe. This god would be reaching into events in the world, and bypassing the laws of physics to influence
the outcomes. People who lost limbs might have them re-appear. Babies killed in fires might come back to life. Other
true miracles would happen. I’ve seen none of this, and I know of no one else who has either. In fact, there is
no reliable evidence of any divine intervention, ever! God fails the reality test of everyday life.
We’ve looked at religion and history, education, politics, medicine, and everyday life. “What’s
the harm in religion?” some people say. I think that I’ve shown some of the harm. Religion is divisive and
poisonous to rational thought. Madalyn Murray O’Hair summarized it well when she said, “Religion has ever been
anti-human, anti-woman, anti-life, anti-peace, anti-reason and anti-science. The god idea has been detrimental not
only to humankind but to the earth. It is time now for reason, education and science to take over.”
God is Just an Idea
What could an invisible, immaterial god be like? This immaterial god would have an immaterial mind,
and the only minds that we have any examples of result from physical brains. The only invisible, immaterial
things that I know of are ideas, like mathematic, scientific and social concepts. Altho ideas can be powerful
in moving people to action, they are abstract human creations and have no separate reality. If humankind
were to disappear tomorrow, so would ideas — including the idea of a god.
The English language even has a term for this: “reify” — which means “to regard something abstract
as real or concrete.” The “god” idea is about as abstract as possible, with no real evidence for
existence. However, people have been regarding some god or gods as real for thousands of years.
Where did this god idea come from? Humans are pattern-seeking animals. We see patterns
everywhere, such as similarities between different types of plants, animals and people. We also often
imagine invisible agents
as causing movement and noises around us. To a great degree, this capability has served us well by
helping us understand and adapt to our environment. It also causes us to imagine patterns where they don’t
really exist — ghosts, monsters in a child's room, the man in the moon, clouds, Rorschach tests, and “intelligent”
design in the universe. This is where the god idea comes from. Michael Shermer said it best. “The concept
of God is generated by a brain designed by evolution to find design in nature (a very recursive idea).”
Because we are sentient, social beings, our brains are wired to interact with other such
brains. This capability is easily subverted, and we often anthropomorphize animals and even objects — giving
them “human” qualities. The god concept can be seen as simply the result of people anthropomorphizing the
universe. Also, because each god is just a projection of people's minds, he usually agrees with them.
As social beings, we desire the interaction, friendship, connection, and love of other
beings. What could be better for this than an (imaginary) friend in the sky who will always love us
and care about us, and will even sometimes do our bidding?
The god idea also gives people the ability to be certain about many things, while ignoring
scientific facts. In effect, they would rather be certain than right.
Many people claim that they can experience their god thru meditation or prayer. It's important
to understand what goes on inside the brain during such activities. Brain scans have shown that there's a section
dedicated to delineating self from non-self. During meditation or prayer this section can have reduced activity —
which can be experienced as a connection or oneness with the universe, or with God.
Proofs and Qualities of God(s)
Ultimately though, it’s not necessary to prove that a god doesn’t exist. It is up to the
god-believers to prove that their god or gods exist, for they are making the assertion of the existence of something that
is not immediately visible. For example, if I were to claim that there's an invisible ten-foot tall pink unicorn
standing next to you, and demand that you feed her, you could justifiably expect some sort of hard proof. The
same concept of proof lies with those who claim that an invisible, immaterial god exists. Thus, even if all
proofs of the nonexistence of gods were to fail, it would still be necessary for theists to prove the actual
existence of their god, if they expect us to take them seriously.
Some people say that we can’t prove that a god doesn’t exist; to do so we would have to have
absolute knowledge. This is wrong. Depending on how we define a god, it's possible to prove that it is
self-contradictory and incoherent, and thus can’t exist — just like it's possible to prove that square circles can’t
exist. Let's first discuss the Christian god Yahweh, which, as I've noted, is typically defined as having free will and
being omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), omnibenevolent (all-good), omnipresent (present everywhere), eternal,
and unchanging. Yahweh is also the creator of the universe.
Many Christian philosophers describe Yahweh as a transcendent being that is outside of space and time. This
directly contradicts his being omnipresent (everywhere in space and time).
Christian philosophers also often add other attributes to Yahweh (a.k.a. God), such as unknowable,
ineffable, incomprehensible, and of course supernatural — because they don’t want to limit a supposedly
infinite being. How can we conceive or even logically discuss these characteristics? Any in-depth
analysis ends in confusion, contradictions, and irrational nonsense.
First, it’s important to note that humans concocted all of these qualities of Yahweh, and they have no
examples in the real world — much like the capabilities of Superman. To get a better understanding of what Christians
really mean, we can substitute “magical” whenever we see “supernatural;” they are semantically indistinguishable.
Yahweh’s typical qualities sound pretty good. Unfortunately these attributes are mutually
exclusive and can’t all exist in one being, no matter how supernatural it is. Yahweh can’t have free will and be
omniscient and omnipotent. If Yahweh knows the future, Yahweh would be unable to change it, and thus could not
be omnipotent. As a simple example, let’s say that Yahweh declares what tomorrow’s winning lottery numbers will
be, and writes them down. However, now Yahweh can’t change those numbers. Yahweh can’t both know the
future and change it. In fact, an omniscient god can’t actually decide to do anything!
The idea of Yahweh's omniscience also brings into serious question the concepts of human free will and
morality. If Yahweh knows what we are going to do then we have no free will and are just characters in a play
created by Yahweh. Without free will, morality for humans makes no sense. Without free will and morality,
any sort of divine punishment and reward system loses any justification. Heaven and Hell would be places where
Yahweh could watch the souls he created, predestined for eternal happiness or agony.
In the earlier discussion of the First Cause Argument, I showed another reason
that Yahweh can't exist. A Creator God like Yahweh that is eternal, perfect, and unchanging is impossible.
Yahweh is thus self-contradictory, incoherent internally and externally, and impossible — and can’t exist.
The Muslim god Allah also suffers from conflicting characteristics. The Quran describes Allah
as the Compassionate, the Merciful, the Loving, and the Just. In order for Allah to be just, he has to punish
those who transgress his laws. To be just means to punish people exactly as they deserve. To be merciful
means to punish people less than they deserve. In order for Allah to be compassionate, merciful, and loving, he can't
punish without these terms losing their meaning. Thus Allah can't exist with these four qualities.
Some people say that their god really does love us, but occasionally punishes us to teach us
something. Because this “punishment” often involves people dying (from diseases or in natural disasters)
this supposed “godly” love has little correlation to human love and is obviously concocted.
The Problem of Evil, or Theodicy
Yahweh can’t be both omnibenevolent and omnipotent, because terrible events really do occur, and this all-loving
god hasn’t prevented them. This is known as the problem of evil (also known as theodicy), and it is one of the oldest and biggest
problems for those attempting to prove the existence of a loving, all-powerful god. How can anybody explain the existence of such a god,
while also knowing the bad things that happen to all of us and the terrible things that happen to far too many?
Christian philosopher Richard Swinburne says of the problem of evil, “If the world was without any natural evil and
suffering we wouldn't have the opportunity, or nearly as much opportunity, to show courage, patience and sympathy.” This may
be true, but is all the suffering in the world necessary? Is not at least some of the suffering gratuitous? Is there sufficient
good — or even any good — derived from children dying almost every second from starvation or dysentery? How are they helped by others
showing courage, patience and sympathy?
The ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus summed it up well when he wrote these ideas:
Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can and does not want to.
If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent.
If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked.
If, as they say, God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?
And yet the idea of an all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good god with free will won’t go
away. So, here we are discussing this subject again. It’s good to remember that thousands of gods have been created
by humankind. Monotheists don’t believe in all but one of them. Atheists don’t believe in just one more.
In fact, the existence of honest and kind atheists is another proof that the Christian god, who demands belief,
doesn’t exist. If this all-good (or all-loving) god existed, it would want everybody to be saved — even atheists. If
this all-knowing god existed, it would know that atheists just want real proof of its existence. If this god were all-powerful
it would be able to give unambiguous proof of its existence. It hasn’t. Therefore this god doesn’t exist.
As I have shown, the concept of God is also logically contradictory; God not only does not exist
but cannot exist. In short, God is impossible.
Atheism, Agnosticism and Humanism
The atheist position is that the universe is understandable and explainable in the naturalistic terms of
science and mathematics.
There is no need for a god in order to explain the universe, or reliable evidence to
show that any god exists. Atheism is more than just a belief paradigm; it is a conclusion based on the
lack of any empirical evidence for any gods. Reality rules.
Richard Dawkins expressed it well. “The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we
should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” He
also wrote why atheism is useful for improving our
world.
“Let's get up off our knees, stop cringing before
bogeymen and virtual fathers, face reality, and help science to do something constructive about human suffering.”
Some people claim that it takes more faith to be an atheist than to be a believer. This is
false. All it takes to be an educated atheist is understanding rational logic and what scientific evidence is, not
unquestioning faith or beliefs. For instance, atheists (like most people) don’t simply believe or have faith that
the sun will come up tomorrow; we conclude that it will — based on evidence and logic,
and make informed decision based on it, like the decision to bring a sunbrella
to the beach.
We also know that no gods were causing
lightning
before it was understood. Atheists know that the same process of evidence and logic can also be
applied to larger subjects such as evolution and the Big Bang. This may remove some of the ‘magic’ of the
universe, but for many it can create deep feelings of amazement and wonder of the world around us.
Most people seem to assume that agnosticism is a position between theism and atheism, and that atheism and
agnosticism are incompatible. This is false. Agnosticism deals with knowledge (or lack thereof). Theism and
atheism deal with beliefs. Theism is based on the belief that a god or gods exist. Basic atheism is simply a lack
of belief in gods. For many atheists, it is also the conclusion that no gods exist.
Why atheism and not agnosticism? Many people say that there still could be a god, that we
can’t totally disprove the existence of all types of gods. That is true, but most people's just-in-case-there-is-a-god
agnosticism ends up splitting hairs and being intellectually lazy (or displays their unwillingness to accept difficult
conclusions). I think that this agnosticism is just atheism for cowards. Some have defined it as, “I don't believe
in God, but in case I'm wrong I'm really, really sorry.”
It's interesting that Christian philosophers, as I've noted, give attributes to Yahweh such as unknowable,
ineffable, and incomprehensible — which are just terms for agnosticism.
The typical personal god, such as Allah or Yahweh, would show up in its interactions with the real, physical world. As
I've noted, there is no empirical evidence of this. Thus, in this case, absence of evidence is evidence of
absence. I've also shown that Allah and Yahweh can't exist because their definitions are incoherent. This leaves only marginal
gods that have little or no interaction with humans and the world. Do we think that the ancient Greek gods still exist? How about
the Roman, Norse or Mayan gods? How about Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny? Of course not. There is no verifiable evidence
for any supernatural guy in a red suit, magic rabbit, or gods. Just like it’s hypothetically possible for an undetectable teapot to
be orbiting the sun (as noted by Bertrand Russell), some gods are also hypothetically possible, but ridiculously improbable. So,
let’s be honest with ourselves and look at the world with open eyes, as it actually is.
Essentially, all the hypothetical arguments become rather pointless. Atheism is the simple
conclusion that there are no gods, based on the reliable evidence. Until some god makes its presence indisputably,
unquestionably known, I will go with the conclusion that no god exists. This is why I'm an atheist. Technically,
I'm an agnostic atheist, and I'm agnostic about gods to the same degree that I'm agnostic about invisible fairies in my garden.
Christians and Jews don't believe in Allah or Brahma. Hindus don't believe in Yahweh or
Allah. Muslims don't believe in Brahma or Yahweh. Atheists agree with all of them.
The truth is that we are, each of us, all alone in our minds. Many people have imaginary friends
called gods to make them feel less alone, and often more loved. Our desire for love is a powerful trait, and it's
one of the reasons for the popularity of Christianity with its sayings “God loves you” and “Jesus loves you.” Some
people learn to give up their imaginary friends. It’s sometimes not easy not believing, and it is
intellectually honest. Atheists can derive strength from that.
There's no reliable evidence for any gods, saviors, demons, heavens or hells. They are all just
creations of people attempting to flee the idea of their own mortality, and promulgated by honest people who are similarly
deluded or by tricksters who fleece the sheep.
People have been struggling with mortality for thousands of years. Here are four quotes that I like:
“Why should I fear death? If I am, death is not. If death is, I am not. Why should I fear
that which can only exist when I do not?”
- Epicurus
“For me, it is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however
satisfying and reassuring.”
- Carl Sagan
“We are all going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because
they are never going to be born. ... The only reason we die is that we were
born. Would you rather have never been born at all?”
- Richard Dawkins
“I was dead for millions of years before I was born and it never inconvenienced me a bit.”
- Mark Twain
