God is Indeed Dead: It is Scientifically Provable

A common claim in the discussion surrounding, made by both the religious and atheists or agnostics, is that God cannot be disproved. I think that many or most atheists allow this misconception based on the true premise that science cannot disprove a phenomenon without evidence for or against it. And, I think some of the more enlightened and less fundamentalist of the religious out there claim the same thing. They understand enough of the scientific method to understand that their claim of God cannot be disproved. Some of the religious use this as a petty form of argument: “You can’t disprove my God exists, therefore there is a good chance He exists.” But in this post I blame atheists and agnostics for their stance on this issue. I am disappointed to say that I have yet to meet an atheist who doesn’t concede this point, that God cannot technically be disproved, even if there is no evidence in support of His existence and even if it is overwhelmingly unlikely that He exists.

The reason I have a problem with this point of view is as follows. It is true that the notion of a non-specific deity cannot technically be disproved, but in reality we rarely talk about the potential existence of a non-specific, non-meddling, impersonal deity who shows no evidence for his or her existence. And, in practical terms it is the very specific gods of human history (Yahweh, Allah, or plain old “God”) who cause most of the debates about religion. “God exists, I have a personal relationship with Him, and you can’t disprove that.” Well, I beg to differ. Once you make your deity specific, as all who follow organized monotheistic religions such as Judaism, Islam, or Christianity necessarily do, then you put all the evidence for that specific deity out there for judgment. You can’t make very specific claims about the nature and the actions of your deity and then claim that since science cannot examine the evidence for that deity it cannot disprove it’s existence.

Let’s take a look at some of the very specific attributes attributed to the Christian God as an example.

• It was claimed of the Christian God that He created the world in six days. We know scientifically that the world was not created in six days.

• He is the same God that people claim answers their personal prayers. We know scientifically that prayers are not systematically answered. (Some scientific blinded studies have even been done showing no effect of prayer on health outcomes).

• He is the same God that people claim sent himself to earth in human form through a virgin in the Middle East two millennia ago. We know scientifically that this is not possible, and we have pretty good reason to believe that it did not happen when you examine the verified records of the time.

• He is the same God that people claim died and the came to life again a couple of days later. Again, we have very good reason to believe scientifically that this never happened. For such an unheard of event there should have been many, many written records of the event. Indeed, everyone who could write at the time would surely have written something about the event, especially considering it was apparently accompanied by a massive earthquake and a number of zombies walking around in plain sight in Jerusalem, none of which is recorded.

• He is the same God that people claimed would come back to the Middle East in person within the lifetimes of the people there at the time. We know that did not happen.

These are a few examples of specific claims about a particular God which have been convincingly shown not to be true. So, it is no longer reasonable to simply say that science cannot disprove the existence of God, when you make such a claim about a very specific God whom you have defined carefully beforehand.

Some of these claims will be dismissed by more liberal-minded Christians by claiming that they were not intended to be taken literally. But this attitude is simply one of trying to move the target as needed. No one ever claimed that the Genesis account of creation was not to be taken literally until science showed that it couldn’t be true. Only after that did the religious alter their claims out of necessity and start to claim that it’s just a story that describes something more profound. A classic case of making your beliefs fit the irrefutable evidence as needed.

If, when you refer to “God”, you are referring to the God in the Bible, the God that most Christians would consider their deity, then it is entirely reasonable to state that God does not exist. It is also entirely reasonable to state that science has proven He does not exist. The religious would be flawed to then claim that science can’t technically disprove the existence of their God, because most of the qualities and history of that God have been disproved. To alter the qualities and history of God to fit the new evidence that arises from science (such as the fact that the world was not created in six days), is to simply ignore the facts and to adjust your target in order to cling to your belief.

If you really want to be convincing in your argument that science cannot disprove your God, then you need to define your God, explain what he/she is like, what he/she does, what he/she has done in the past, and then let science take it’s best crack at disproving it. The only deities so far that science is unable to disprove are the ones that are specifically poorly described such as the Invisible Pink Unicorn or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But, gods such as Allah, Yahweh, or other monotheistic deities have long since been disproved as convincingly as has the notion that the sun revolves around the earth.

The Hitch Remembered

Christopher Hitchens was a unique man of immense intellect. All one needs to do is type his name into YouTube and tune into one of the dozens of videos to get a sample of his incredible command of language, his rational approach to any debate, and his wit. Hitchens achieved his greatest fame when he tackled the issue of religion, and it was not until the last five years or so of his life that he became a real household name. As one of his contemporaries describes, Hitchens hated dictators and he gradually progressed in his writing towards the greatest controlling dictator of them all: God. It was his book God is Not Great that really brought him into the limelight, probably due to the negative reaction of so many religious people. But, as they say of The Hitch, love him or hate him, you could not ignore him. Sadly, Hitchens passed away last December.

Martin Amis was by all accounts Christopher's closest friend. Just hearing each of them describe their friendship makes one envious of the strength of their relationship. The following video clip is Martin Amis giving the eulogy at a Christopher Hitchens memorial, in which he attempts to unearth why Hitchens was so beloved by so many. With his characteristic dry humour, Amis recounts a few tales of this four-decade long friendship with Hitchens: 

The previous evening, Charlie Rose spends an hour interviewing four of Hitchens' friends, writers Salman Rushdie, Ian McEwan, James Fenton, and Martin Amis. These are the men who knew Hitchens the best. Some of them knew him since he was a young man at Oxford. Though this clip is an hour long, it is a very good window into the character of "The Hitch", it is also very funny at times, and of course sad when they discuss his eventual death. Well worth watching and remembering what the world lost when The Hitch passed on:

Questioning your Faith Part I

Are you a Christian?

If you are, the first question you should probably ask yourself is why you find yourself on this blog. Why are you reading a blog about atheism, written by someone who used to be a Christian? Is there something about your religious faith that nags at your subconscious? Or perhaps your doubts are more obvious to you. Perhaps you have started to have serious questions about your religious beliefs. Either way, maybe you have doubts, and maybe you are wondering...what next?

I thought I would aim my writing towards those who consider themselves Christians or religious but who may be wondering about their religion or their God. Does God really exist? Are there really people who don't believe in Him? Am I alone in having doubts about the religion I have believed for so long?

Firstly, if you don't have any interest in questioning your religion, then there is probably no point in reading any further. Questions, whether big or small, are the key to understanding your religion in a new light. If you still believe that God exists and you have a personal relationship with Him, if it makes you angry when people deny His existence, then these writings are unlikely to be of interest to you. But, if you've ever wondered whether it is OK to question God's existence, please read on.

I've written earlier on my blog about the time when I started to question my religion and my belief in God. It can be a frightening propostition to question the existence of God. You fear what He might think if you question Him and if you wonder if He even exists. You worry where it might lead. What questions might come next. Put aside your fear. If God exists, surely he would want followers who do ask difficult questions. Surely he would want you to ask every difficult question, even the ones that seem to have no answer. Surely your loving Heavenly Father isn't going to strike you down in anger just because you question His existence. On the other hand, if God does not exist, then that is a question you really, really need to ask. The stakes are very high, there is the rest of your life to consider...do you want to take the chance that you will waste the one life you'll ever have by believing in something that doesn't exist? After all, hundreds of millions of people from other religions do just that, don't they? What makes you right and them wrong?

Christianity doesn't like difficult questions. Some Christians even teach that questioning God is the Devil's work. See, that's the trick of it all. If you have been taught your whole life that you shouldn't question something, and have fear put into you of what might happen if you do, then you're going to stay in line. Just ask anyone who lived in the Soviet Union. Never question the authority. Just keep your head down and believe, right? No. Put your fears aside and question. Ask yourself the really difficult questions that might have been nagging at you.

If God exists and loves everyone, why did tens of thousands of children die painfully from hunger this week? Is it really all part of his loving plan for humanity? Is it really the result of original sin that entered the world through one man and one woman, and it's just too bad that all those children are suffering as a result? Or is it just the painful and sorry reality of the world we live in, without a God?

If God exists, why has He never once really shown himself to you? Oh sure, you've "felt" his presence from time to time, but there's never been anything conclusive, has there? He's never appeared to you in the same way as another human being does. You've never heard his voice as clearly as you hear the radio out loud, have you? It's always just a feeling that you have that He wants you to do something or to live a certain way. Why?

If God exists, then why is there not a single documented case ever of an amputee being healed by Him? Sure, there are lots of wonderful miracle stories of invisible diseases like cancer being cured, but it's never the obviously visible ones that God tackles. Why? Does he really have a problem with amputees? Or is he really trying to keep himself that hidden, so that only those who really, really, really seek Him will find Him? Or, is it more likely that there are no miracles at all, and that sometimes people are cured of diseases for unexplained reasons but that incurable things like amputations do not happen without explanation?

If God exists, then why were there relgions around before the Abrahamic religions of the Bible? Wouldn't He want His one true religion to be the first documented one? Yet it is not. There were religions in the Americas before the time of Christ. Did Satan really mislead all those tens of millions of Native Americans before they had a chance to even hear the Gospel? Why not just leave them alone and let them have no religion at all? Doesn't make any sense, does it?

If God exists, then why did most human beings in history die young, painful deaths? Before science discovered the incredible finds of modern medicine, you'd be lucky to make it to 35 years of age. Many, if not most, children died in infancy or childhood. Doesn't that sound a bit of a cruel way for a loving God to set up the world? Is all that death really fair punishment just because one man and one woman once ate the wrong piece of fruit?

Why are there so many "paradoxes" (i.e. contradictions) in the Bible? Anyone who has gone to Sunday School must have noticed them. First God tells people to not eat certain foods and to be circumcized, then he says it doesn't matter after all. First God tells you that he is all-loving, but then he lashes out in anger all the time at innocent people and animals. Then there are all the things in the Bible that contradict known facts in our world. In the creation story, why was time divided into day and night before the creation of the sun? A global flood at the time of Noah is physically impossible. There is no way to cover the earth with water to a height of the highest mountains on earth (roughly 30,000 feet). There is not enough water on earth for that too happen. Where did it all go afterwards? Et cetera, et cetera. All of these contradictions can be explained away if you want. Most Christians will find a way to reconcile the Biblical contradictions with their belief in God...but that's not why you are here. You already raised these questions yourself, didn't you? So, why are there so many contradictions in the one book handed to humanity from an all-wise, all-knowing God?

Perhaps the hardest part of questioning one's faith is not wondering about these few questions I've raised. The harder part is accepting that it is OK to question. It is very hard to set aside one's fear of what is going to happen if you question your faith. What happens if you lose your faith? Won't you go to hell?

It is time to ask yourself to answer a question very honestly. If there was no such thing as an afterlife, would you still stick with your religion? If Christianity ended when you die, and you just ceased to exist like a plant does when it dies, would you still be a Christian for the rest of your life? What would be the point? Sure, you might like to think that life would have more meaning being in a relationship with God, and following his lead in your life, but be honest, would you really stick with it? If not, then consider what you are really saying is that you are only a Christian because of fear of Hell. Time to set that irrational fear aside and ask yourself some more questions.

Why "Atheist for Peace"?

Image courtesy of Google images.

Why do I call my blog "Atheist for Peace"?

Well, in some senses, I came up with the name in the easiest way: I wanted to write a bit about my experiences and outlook in life as an atheist who was formerly religious, and I also highly value peace - not just an absence of war, but of true peace in the sense of reduced conflict between humans at all levels of society. Personally I believe atheism, a true rational approach to life without the dogma and instructions of religions, is the best way for humans to find peace with each other, and I think that is a common theme in the background of my writings on this blog. I am all for discussions and arguments. I don't ever want to see everyone in the world agree with one another like some sort of robot world, but what I do hope for and aspire to is a world in which those discussions, disagreements and differences of opinion are expressed in a respectful manner and one in which a true understanding of opposing points of view is sought, and more importantly where people admit when their opinion does not make sense, is not rationally defensible, and they have been proven wrong. I long for a world in which people form their opinions based on proven reality rather than on what someone else tells them. Religion is one of the main things that causes people to resist giving up their opinions even when they are irrational and proven wrong. (Patriotism is another such structure that causes irrational thought and inability to accept when one is wrong). In many ways, I think an ideal world would be one in which people did not have "beliefs", because to me a belief is a position you hold that is not necessarily evidence based. Sure, we all believe that the world is round not flat, but would you really call that a belief or simply an acceptance of reality? Sadly, it often seems the world is going in the opposite direction, with less and less understanding between people of different points of view.

It is easy to point at infamous atheists in history and reject the idea that atheism can help bring about a peaceful world. People like Stalin and Mao are obvious examples of those who publicly rejected religion and pursued a society free from religion. The results were terrifying, to be sure. But, that is because they tried to impose their will on people in society, a road to disaster and pain no matter what your will happens to be. Whether you are atheist, Baptist, Catholic, Muslim, Jewish, Republican, Democrat, pro-life or pro-choice, if you try to impose your views, beliefs, and will on other people by force then the results will almost always be negative. My suggestion as to why atheism can offer peace is that I believe people should take the time to logically and rationally examine the world around them very thoughtfully before they make their opinions or beliefs. And, I believe that when people do so, the ultimate and sole position that makes sense is atheism. Atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief in deities. It does not, as some may think, mean you are a liberal, an environmentalist, a hippie, a scientist, or any other label. I do not necessarily think that when someone examines the world rationally they will end up as any of those things. I do believe that it is possible to be a rational, independent, and critical thinker and be a conservative, for example. But, I do not accept that it is possible to be a rational, independent, and critical thinker and be religious. Being religious requires that you accept some things on faith that someone else has told you are true, and which are not independently verifiable - the exact opposite of independent, critical thinking.

When you look at most of the conflicts in the world, they stem from misunderstandings or unwillingness to understand different points of view. I'm not just talking about conflicts that result in wars, but also everyday conflicts in the workplace, in the home, in school, in society in general. When we avoid taking the time to really understand another's point of view, then we risk creating conflict. Sometimes, when we do take the time to understand someone else's point of view there is still conflict because one or the other of us are not thinking rationally. I think this basic feature of human interaction leads to all the major wars in society. The American invasion of Iraq, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts, the Cold War, all are basically the result of non-rational thought combined with massive misunderstanding, and a desire to impose one's will on others. If people would avoid those three things, there would be much more peace in this world.

Take the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, for example. I have long maintained that the only way there will ever be peace in that region of the world is if children are taught from birth not to hate the other side, to truly understand the other side's position, fears, and desires. It would only take one generation to have peace if that were done. I have met and known many Israelis and some Palestinians in my life. Without exception, every single Israeli I have ever met believes that the entire conflict is the fault of the Palestinians. If the Palestinians would just stop using violence to get their way, then we could have peace. And, without exception, every Palestinian I have met believes that the entire conflict is the fault of the Israelis. If the Israelis would just understand that this was our land and it was taken away from us by force, then we could have peace. To be sure there are many complex issues in that conflict that would take some serious negotiating to resolve. But, until a generation of Israelis and Palestinians are raised not to hate and mistrust, there will never be peace. How many times have we seen Israeli and Palestinian leaders smile for the cameras as they shake hands and claim peace, perhaps with an American politician smiling on? Never has it actually resulted in long-term peace. If everyone in that conflict was educated to think rationally, the Jews would be forced to accept that they are not in fact a special race. The Palestinians would be forced to accept that the Jews do actually have as much of a right to live in the region as anyone else. Or, even better, if people thought truly rationally, they would accept that we are all just human and being Jewish or Palestinian doesn't really matter.

I'm not naive, I know that the world will never be a rational place. Humans, en masse, are incapable of rational thought. But it doesn't stop me from promoting more rational, logical, critical, and independent thought. And, as I say, I believe that the first step when we all start doing so would be to discard the ancient and primitive shackles of religion. Not by force, but by free choice and acceptance of the truth of the world we live in.

Is it possible to be a former Christian or a former atheist?

One of the arguments that I find Christians trot out immediately in conversation with someone who left the faith and became an atheist, is to claim that they were never a Christian to begin with. Christianity is based upon a personal relationship with Jesus, so it is impossible for Christians to accept that someone who had that personal relationship can now abandon it and leave the faith. The only plausible explanation is that the person was never really a Christian, that they never really knew Jesus. I have heard Christians make this claim about the most dedicated former Christians, including people who were preachers for decades. The claim is always that the person must have been faking it, or that they must have just viewed their Christianity as a dry religion rather than as a living relationship with the creator. The ironic thing is that, no one ever seems able to point to those Christians who are not real Christians while they are still Christians. It is easy to simply state that someone was never a real Christian after they have given it all up, but if they were never really a Christian, shouldn't that lack of real faith been detectable at the time?

Ironically, I find myself making the exact same statement about some people who claim to have converted from atheism to Christianity. "You weren't a real atheist, or else you never would have become a Christian. If you really understood what it means to accept that there is no evidence for deities, then you couldn't possibly become a believing Christian." I have wondered if I am just being hypocritical in my criticism of Christians for taking the easy way out in disregarding a former Christian and then doing much the same when it comes to former atheists. However, I think that my claim that someone who became a Christian was not a real atheist is fundamentally different for the reason I alluded to above. The person who claims to be an atheist and then embraces Christianity can be "outed" while they are still an atheist. If you walked me into a room full of people who claimed to be atheists and asked me to have a conversation with them to find out the people who are most likely to convert to Christianity, I believe I could do so. I believe I would be able to point out some people who would never become Christians and others who simpy don't get atheism and rationalism and therefore may one day become religious. I don't think the opposite scenario is plausible - that a Christian could do the same in a room full of Christians. I don't think anyone who met me when I was a Christian would  have thought: "That guy isn't going to be a Christian in the future."

A couple of examples to illustrate my point. Take Kirk Cameron of Growing Pains fame. Everyone knows he is a Christian who had a pretty public conversion during the latter years of the show's production, and he has a fairly public profile as a Christian to this day. But he has claimed that, before he became a Christian in his late teens or early twenties he was an atheist. I don't believe that for a moment. I don't think he was ever a real atheist. I think he simply didn't think about religion or atheism, so he now categorizes himself as a former atheist just because he wasn't a Christian. I think if you had sat down with Kirk Cameron as a twenty year old and asked him why he doesn't believe there are any deities, I doubt you would have gotten a carefully thought through explanation about rationalism and lack of evidence. I doubt he would have outlined how scientific advances have, at every turn, discredited the notion of a personal God. Another example is Alister McGrath. He is a prominent Christian who also claims to be a former atheist. But, I don't think he was an atheist at all. When you listen to him in interviews, he simply mentions that he was an atheist but then became a Christian in university once he started to think for himself. (Ironic that he converted to the religion of the culture he was living in if he truly started to think for himself...notice that very few people in England or America convert to Buddhism once they become religious). An example video interview is found here:

As an aside, it is interesting to note that McGrath states that there are interesting questions that science cannot answer but which religion can, questions such as "Why are we here?" But, he never suggests why religion can answer those questions, or what the answers are. He simply comes up with something that he thinks is outside the realm of science. This is a classic example of someone not liking the answer that science provides and turning somewhere else for a more palatable, though fictitious answer.


In conclusion then, I believe it is very much possible to be a former Christian. While it might be technically possible to be a former atheist, it is very much less likely.

God-made man, or man-made gods?

Beleif or non-belief in religion ultimately boils down to the question of whether you think a god made humans or whether humans made gods. If you are in the former camp, then you pretty well have to be an atheist or at least an agnostic. There might be a few people in a fringe group who accept that humans made the gods, but who still want to believe they exist and worship them, but that would be an unusual position. If you think that human beings are responsible for creating all the gods, including the Christian god "God", then it is probably only a matter of time until you reject religion and embrace atheism.

So, how do we answer that question? As the old AC/DC song goes: "Who made who?" It's a question which cannot be proven one way or the other, at least scientifically. Since there is no way to disprove the existence of God scientifically, many Christians take that to mean that he must exist or that his existence is likely or even plausible. It is not. The scientific approach to things shows us no evidence for any gods. When there is no evidence for something in science, despite our best efforts to find it, it almost certainly doesn't exist.


Let's think for a minute about the option of God creating humans. While we have to allow that it is technically possible, it is more important to examine the question of whether it is a plausible concept. What would we expect if God had created the world and everything in it, us included? God is love, so say Christians. Above all else he is a loving god. It's all they sing about in their hymns. While sermons and lessons also include a fair bit about judgement and power, Christians almost all agree that their god is loving. Yet, what do we see through history and pre-history in terms of humanity? The vast majority of humans have died a premature, painful, and lonely death. All through pre-history, humans were mostly dying off as infants without a chance to enjoy anything in life. The few that survived to adulthood could expect a primitive, painful existence of hunger, disease, fighting off predators, and a death by age 30 at the latest. Is this really they system of life you would set up if you were an omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving god? Imagine you were sitting there with no universe in place yet. You get to choose everything about the universe. You can create it any way you want, and you can fine tune it any way you want. Plus, you get to foresee all the possible outcomes of any universe you decided to create before hand. You would go ahead and create one in which your chosen species, molded in your image, whom you loved so dearly you would sacrifice your only son for, that species would suffer tremendously every day? The newborns of that species that you love would mostly die off shortly after birth through some disease, caused by a microorganism that you also created. Really?

OK, so let's assume that God knows more than we do. Perhaps he knows that dying is actually the easy way out because it leads to heaven. Maybe he's actually doing us all a favour by creating a world where, for most of our existence we've scratched out a meager existence full of pain, disease and death. Doesn't that then beg the question of what about all those people who don't hear about Jesus (i.e. the vast majority of humans throughout pre-history and history). They all just get shuffled off to hell forever. Congratulations, you survived infancy and childhood, you lived to age 18 and then got picked off by a sabre-toothed tiger. But, unfortunately it is the nature of the universe that you now get to spend an eternity of pain and misery in hell because you didn't accept Jesus Christ as your personal saviour. So sorry about that. Does this sound like the all-loving Christian god?

Let me pause at this point and state that I am aware that many or most Christians would object to this line of characterization of their religion, that I am focusing on things that are not really relevant or part of their loving god. Jesus is all about love and forgiveness, he brought light and salvation to the very dark and cruel world that I've just described, right? Well, to me that attitude it nothing more than a particular brand of patriotism. I hate patriotism because it blinds people to the objective facts about their country. Patriotism also insists that one's country is better than everyone else's, and it leads to all sorts of nastiness like wars. Patriotism over one's religion is no different. It is easy to turn a blind eye to the darker side of one's beliefs, to the assumptions that must co-exist with your established beliefs, but which no Sunday School teacher really spends any time on. Consider Nazi Germany for a minute. Almost everyone, except for a few punk skinheads, will agree that Hitler was the embodiment of evil, that his Third Reich was a ruthless and evil empire. Yet, it would not be hard to imagine a poor German in the 1930s and early 1940s being quite in awe of Hitler. It would not be hard to imagine a German peasant praising him for re-igniting the German economy into a world power, for re-claiming the German territories that were unfairly taken from them at the Treaty of Versailles after World War I. Hitler brought in autobahns, Volkswagen, and gave people jobs (the all important mantra of today's politicians). You might even say he was Germany's saviour. Yet, his evil deeds cannot be ignored or glossed over. All the good he did for Germany came at a terrible cost to the rest of humanity. Similarly with the Christian god Yahweh. He does so much good for Christians, offering them love, hope, forgiveness, and jobs, and yet punishes the rest of humanity eternally. No Nazi concentration camp could come close to the horrors of the Christian hell.

But I digress. The point of this post is not to compare Hitler and God. God wins that comparison hands down. No, rather I am trying to point out how ridiculous the notion is that God made humans. God is so human in character and temperament that he really offers nothing that humans cannot offer. He is fickle, jealous, unforgiving, and ruthless. He is also capable of great love, friendship, forgiveness and hope. What could be more human? We are all capable for such good and such bad. God is definitely made in man's image, both good and bad.

Another thought that must be examined, if you believe that God created humans with the intention of relating to them, of having humans come to know him fully and entering into an eternal relationship. One must consider his communication with humanity. Apart from those momentous occasions in the Old Testament when God actually spoke out loud, appeared as a pillar of fire or a burning bush, or walked about as a human being for a few years in the time of the Romans, God's only realy communication with humanity is through his book, the Bible. So, how effective of a book is the Bible, considering it is authored by an omniscient, omnipotent creator of the universe? How effective is it at helping humans get to know God and come to love him and want to relate to him? What would you write in a book if you wanted your human children to have a long-lasting and loving relationship with you?

Well, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be the Bible. Imagine you were having a child of your own. You knew you wouldn't be around physically to guide and teach your child as they grow up, so you write a book for them to read, to help them learn about the nature of the world, about your character, and about how much you love them and want to relate to them. Would you spend the first two thirds of the book basically outlining your personal history, complete with all your vindictive little stories about how you screwed over everyone who ever crossed you or made you mad? Would you spell out in intimate details all the little rules that you want your child to follow, including how they should cut their hair and precisely what foods they should and shouldn't eat? Would you point out what a worthless piece of shit they are, and how their whole life is full of evil deeds and sin, and how the only way to really make it up is to try to spend the rest of their lives finding you and asking for forgiveness for being born? Would you pour a huge guilt trip over them, all about how you sacrificed so much for them so that they could have a life, how you basically gave up your life completely just so that they could have a life? How do you think that would go over it you wrote a book like that to your child? Just a hunch, but I don't think once they reached adulthood they'd be setting out on a mission to find you and spend the rest of their lives relating to you (when "relating to you" actually means begging forgiveness on a regular basis and having hope that you'll still forgive and love them, because you did include that part in your book to them as well).

So, the more realistic examination of what kind of person God is really doesn't leave much doubt that he's a human-created phenomenon. There is no god. God is a concept we created in the infancy of our history as a species to help us deal with our fear of the dark, of the unexplained, and of death.

What is Atheism VI: Believe it or Not, We Don't Believe God Exists

Many, perhaps most, Christians seem to think that atheists are grumpy, selfish people who are angry with God and who have gone off in a huff to spend their lives as they wish in some sort of mimicking of parent-child relationship gone wrong. This perception stems from the fact that Christians have a very difficult time understanding the point of view that atheists have towards God: that he simply doesn't exist. The parent analogy is a good one because everyone has or had a mother and father at some point. Even if your parents have passed on, they did exist. If you chose not to relate to them, it doesn't change the fact that they existed. So the common habit of applying the father figure role to God leaves Christians unable to appreciate the perspective of someone who doesn't believe in God or gods. My relationship with my own father is not great. Cue the amatuer Christian psychologists who will undoubtedly think they've stumbled upon the reason for my rejection of God. But that is just the point. I have not rejected God. I have rejected the very idea that God exists. I don't go around with a grudge towards God, and hope that I can punish him for my indoctrinated childhood by pretending he isn't there. I actually don't believe he is there. That is the fundamental difference.

This crucial point about understanding atheism is very, very difficult for Christians to grasp. Their whole life they have been told that God is with them in every thought, action, word, every moment. To grasp this  notion that someone else does not believe God exists, is more than difficult.

Sometimes I think in sarcastic terms about what some Christians must think my position on religion is. I assume it goes something like this:

I know that God is there. I know that he is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, so I know that he sees everything I do and think. I used to be a Christian and I know the Bible well, so I know that there is a heaven above us and a hell below. I know that Satan exists and he is constantly trying to tempt me to sin. Ultimately, Satan would love for me to reject God completely and follow his ways. I know that Jesus existed, was born of a virgin, grew to adulthood and was crucified. I know that he rose from the dead, and that his sacrifice was made so that I might not have to pay the ultimate price for my sins if I decided to accept his gift of life. I know that this life is relatively short, and that an eternity of bliss awaits me if I accept Jesus as my saviour. I don't even have to live a perfect life, I just have to accept him in my heart and try to live the way that I think he would want me to live. 


I know all of this, and yet...I reject it all. I prefer to just do what I want for the next forty or fifty years of life that I have left. I'm OK with giving up an eternity in heaven just so that I can tell Jesus to get stuffed and so that I can do what I want in life without consulting him in prayer. Even though my day to day life wouldn't change that much if I accepted Jesus in my heart, I still don't think it is worth it. I could probably keep the same career, the same family, continue to live in the same neighbourhood, continue to do the recreation I enjoy. I might have to go to church, though that, of course, is not necessary for salvation. All I have to do is believe in my heart that Jesus is my saviour and accept him. I'm a smart man, I have a lengthy education. I plan my finances carefully. But I'm too short-sighted to think that this commitment is worth it. I'd rather trade in all eternity just to have my own way for a few decades.

Is that what Christians think? Is that really what they think my position is?

No. I don't believe that God exists. I think the whole thing is man-made. Religion in its entirety is a human fabrication that developed out of fear of death combined with the benefits of primitive groups of people working together more effectively by believing they were different than everyone else. That they had some common belief. That, and their complete inabilty to explain the natural world around them.

We can do better. We can explain much of the natural world around us. Though there is much knowledge left to be gained about nature, we at least know that superstition is false. We at least know that sitting down, closing your eyes and thinking and speaking a certain way to a deity in the sky has absolutely no effect on the outcome of anything.

I'll say it again in case anyone doesn't quite get it yet. In case someone reading this still thinks I am running away from God and choosing my own path:

I don't believe that God exists.

What If I'm Wrong?

The question inevitably exits any religious person's mouth in conversation with an atheist, usually when every other argument has failed. Typically it is presented as a variation of Pascal's famous wager. "What if you are wrong?" Then, the insinuation goes, you will burn in a hot hell for all eternity while your Christians relatives prance around on cool green grass in heaven and refuse to even dip their finger in water and moisten your lips to relieve a bit of the agony. Surely that thought is enough to get you to change your mind and accept Jesus as your personal saviour?

But, it is worth really examining that question. Richard Dawkins has been asked this question in public and more or less makes fun of the sincere but simple questioner in the audient. (See video here). That is certainly one approach, and probably after being asked the question a thousand times, and with limited time to respond, I might take the same such approach. Really, though, there are two main issues to consider: 1) what if the atheist is wrong about there being no God; and 2) what if the Christian is wrong about there being a God. It is only fair to ask the Christian to consider the same question.

Firstly, what if atheists are wrong and there is a God? Pascal's Wager is very illogical, of course, mostly because it assumes that if you decide to bet on the fact that there is a god, then you have to pick which one you believe exists. If you're wrong on that one, then you're no better off than if you didn't pick one at all. (This is the general approach that Dawkins takes in the video: he asks the Christian audience member to consider what happens if some other god turns out to be the one true one). But let's assume for a second that we're talking about the Biblical God. Let's ignore the thousands of other gods that humans have created and focus on the Christian God. If I, as an atheist, am wrong, then yes indeed I will go to hell. I will surely regret my decision and life on earth because a few decades lived as a Christian would be a small price to pay to avoid an eternity of hell, no question. But, what is really important is not that simple arithmetic, but the plausibilty of me being wrong. Consider what the Christian God would have to be like in order for that to be the case. The character presented by modern Christians as the loving father is not possible. What loving father could possibly sentence his own children, often through their own ignorance rather than simple disobedience I might add, to an eternity of suffering. I'd hate to see my own son suffer for five minutes, let alone all eternity. Of course, the standard Christian response to this is that God gives us free will, but not without consequence. Again, what loving father would give his child unlimited free will to decide whether to love him and to be obedient, and then when the child decides to follow his own path in life would shrug with an attitude that says: "Oh well, I tried to warn you, it's your problem if you suffer all your life as a result of being disobedient."? Only a monstrous father, selfish, vindictive and petty, would behave that way. Consider, in addition, that in the case of the fatherly Kingdom of Heaven, he knows all along what the outcome is. So, before you are ever born, indeed before he ever created the universe, he knew I was going to be an atheist and decide not to follow him, as are billions of others in human history. Yet, he decided to go ahead and set up this system that permanently punishes his disobedient children for all eternity. And all just so that he could create some children that have free will to decide if they want to relate to him or not, because he only likes the company of humans who have decided of their own free will to hang out with him. Petty hardly seems a strong enough word for this type of approach, does it? Insecure, immature, petulant, vindictive, mentally insane, evil, are all terms that we might use to describe a man who approached parenthood in such a manner. So, if I am wrong, then yes I will go to hell, but it will be because the god that Christians worship is nothing of loving father that they claim. What would an eternity of heaven in the presence of such a control freak paternal figure be like?

Secondly, what if Christians are wrong and there is no God? Well, this one might be a bit more simple. They are missing out on the one life they will ever have. At first they may not feel that they are missing out. Every Christian I've ever met always insists that they love their Christian life and that they would still be a Christian even if there was no afterlife. Yeah, right. Both of those statements ring very false. Christians love their Christian life yet walk around full of guilt. They walk around choosing ignorance over science and wonder. They prefer the simple non-explanation of how nature came into being and how it works over the amazing and wonderful truth. They prefer to share their guilt with others by poniting out that we are all born miserable and worthless sinners. (Again, what parent could possibly look at their new-born baby and actually believe this?). Christians may not think they are missing out on life by living as a Christian but they are. I know. I was a Christian through my young life, and it warped my sense of reality big-time. It caused me to live life in a specific way that I never would have done had I believed there was no god. I never would have felt the constant burden of sin and guilt, occasionally "washed away" by the blood of The Lamb. I never would have shunned science and had a superior attitude towards people who actually knew far more than I did about reality. I looked down on people who had spent their entire lives collecting knowledge on topics. I looked down on them because I figured they didn't really have the truth. They were at a disadvantage because they didn't know God. What a pathetic and wasteful way to go through life. I can't count how many relationships I missed out on because of my own arrogance and ignorance, how many friendships were superficial because I dismissed potential friends as too "wordly".

If you are a Christian, I challenge you to really think about this question: What if YOU are wrong? What are you missing out on in life? What attitudes are you going through life with that are entirely wrong and inappropriate? How much of this wonderful, complex, and beautiful world are you dismissing because you are so focused on serving a figment of your imagination?

Missing Hitch's Superior Intellect

It's been a month since Christopher Hitchens passed away. The world has probably grown a little darker in that time. Major war in the Middle East is potentially a bit more likely given the escalation of tensions between Western countries and Iran, the irrational clown show that is the Republican primary electoral process continues, and some of world's major economies seem no closer to solving their long-term problems. But, with the loss of Hitchens, the world grew slightly darker simply through lack of his incessant demand that arguments appeal only to reason. Hitchens was known for eloquently blowing arguments out of the water. If he didn't agree with your position, you had little chance of looking like much other than a fool when engaging in a debate with him. But, this was not only because of his incredible intellect and seemingly limitless knowledge, but primarily because he always structured his position in a reasonable, rational manner. This is not something that most people do. Most people pick a position on an issue, and then try to justify it no matter whether their justification is reasonable or not. The very reason Hitchens was so effective in his arguments, and in dismantling others' arguments, was his rational approach. He zeroed in on the main thesis of an opponent and generally dismissed their case while showing them and the audience how foolish it was to even have that position in the first place. All of this he usually did without getting personal (there are exceptions, such as his infamous post-mortum description of Jerry Falwell: "Falwell was so full of shit that if you gave him an enema you could bury what was left in a matchbox.").

In this light, here's a classic Hitchens moment in which he dismisses his opponent's "argument" in support of the divinity of Jesus:

What is Atheism part V: Don't shine your light in my face please.

In the contemporary "battle" that seems to be going on between traditional religions and what seems to be a popularizing of atheism, one of the more common sticking points is the argument about pushing your beliefs on other people and into society. As an atheist, I hold the position that personal freedom when it comes to religion is an important thing to protect in society. I believe that everyone in society should be able to believe whatever religion they wish, so long as their beliefs and practice of those beliefs doesn't infringe on other people's rights to be free from them. To me, this is the only reasonable approach to a society in which everyone has religious freedom as well as freedom from religion if they so wish. However, this is a very difficult concept to put into practice.

The difficult part seems to be helping the religious understand how to avoid having their beliefs infringing on others' rights to be free from them if they so wish. As an atheist, I believe I have the right to live in society without being subjected to any law that stems from religion. I believe this just as strongly as I believe that a religious person has the right to live in society without being subjected to any law that stems from someone else's different religion. This sounds like a logical and respectful position that most people would agree with, but it is amazing how difficult it seems to be to put it into practice. Most religious people, on the face of it, would initially agree with my position. After all, how many Christians really want some of society's laws to be based on Muslim Sharia law? Most open-minded religious people can understand the mutually respectful position of this position, and that it benefits everyone to not be subjected forcefully to someone else's religion.

I would be quite happy to leave it at that, but the catch seems to come when you introduce atheism into the equation. And, let me be clear, it is the religious who do so. I have no need to force atheism into society in any manner. What I do feel the need for is to protect the above position that religion should not be forced into society. There is a very significant difference. The religious will tend to get defensive, when asked to keep their religion out of the courts, the schools, and other public institutions, and almost universally insist that atheists do the same and keep their atheism out of public institutions as well. On the face of it, some people would think this sounds like a fair arrangement, but it actually represents a gross misunderstanding of what atheism is. Atheism is not a religion.

I find that I often think in analogies and I think one here might be helpful. Imagine that each religion is represented by a different coloured light. Imagine that, instead of religions we are talking about various groups of people who like to decorate society with lights of their favourite colour. And imagine that you find offensive lights of differnt colours. Imagine a large group of people who love shining red lights around, another group who loves to shine green lights around, and another who likes blue. Also imagine that the group who likes red lights finds it offensive when they see blue lights or green lights shining in public. Wouldn't the solution appear obvious? Shine your coloured light as much as you want in your own home or even in your own private club of same-minded people, but don't shine it around society and everyone else will agree to do the same. That should take care of any offensive lights being shone in public, but equally protect your individual rights to enjoy your own coloured light whenever you want. You can even walk around in public thinking about your red or green or blue lights as much as you like. Just don't ask to hang one up in the courthouse, the school, or the legislature.

Now, in my analogy, the atheist is represented by someone who doesn't feel the need to enjoy lights of a particular colour. We don't mind you shining your red or green or blue lights in your own home or in your private club as much as you want. But we don't like coloured lights hanging all over town. So, we ask that you don't do so. In my analogy, the religous attitude towards atheis is represented by someone responding by saying: "Yeah, but you're asking us not to shine our red lights around town while at the same time you are trying to shine your dark lights around town." Doesn't make any sense, does it? How can you shine a light that makes things dark? You can't. If you don't like coloured lights then all you can do is request that others don't shine their coloured lights. There is no dark light you can shine that overpowers the coloured lights.

This is all we as atheists are asking for. Don't shine your coloured lights in our faces. Don't bring them into public institutions. We have no intention or need to "bring" atheism into the public institutions either. It only appears to the religious that we do when we ask them to put out their coloured lights.

Of course, the problem with this analogy, and with the reality of religion in society is that everyone thinks that their particular colour is right and everyone else's colour is wrong.

Don't Worry...Hell Makes No Sense Whatsoever

Last week Christopher Hitchens passed away. Prior to his death, Mr. Hitchens foresaw a couple of things happening when his time was to come. Firstly, he predicted that there would be those who claimed he had a last minute death bed conversion to Christianity. Secondly, he predicted that there would be those who claimed, as soon as he died, that he is now in hell. The second of these has happened, though I won't be referring to the specific people who have done so - they don't deserve the publicity.

But, more importantly, these types of claims give us the opportunity to pause and really consider their utter absurdity. Consider for a moment the idea of a hell. Most people will traditionally think of hell as a place where there is eternal suffering and pain at the hands of the Devil. Many modern religious believers will have long since given up the notion of a goat-hooved caricature of the Devil, but many undoubtedly still believe that hell consists of horrific suffering as a result of being tortured by the Devil and his demons. I always like to consider things a bit literally and see where it takes me, so consider that version of hell for a moment. The Devil is God's enemy. God will undoubtedly do one of two things to his mortal enemy of the ages: either destroy him once and for all, or punish him forever. Now, if the Devil is the sort of character who gets off on torturing people to begin with, then spending an eternity in hell torturing unbelievers is probably what the Devil wants to do for an eternity. That would be like heaven for the Devil, wouldn't it? So, if God is just and can't stand evil, then he must either completely destroy the Devil, or make him suffer endless torture alongside all the unbelievers. Either way, hell most certainly does not consist of suffering at the hands of the Devil as that would bring pleasure to the Devil, which surely God wouldn't allow. Why would God reward the Devil with what he wants at the end of the world?

So, many more modern Christians might shun the idea of a Devil-centred hell then. Perhaps they espouse the popular "eternal isolation from God" version of hell. But would that be hell? Suppose you weren't being tortured. Suppose you were alive and pain free for eternity, but were separated from God. Wouldn't that be a version of heaven for an atheist? We're going around in circles here. I just can't find a decent hell.

Then, of course, there is the scientific problems associated with an afterlife of any sort, let alone hell. We know that our personalities are the result of cerebral structures. Give someone a degenerative brain condition and their personality literally changes. They are no longer the same person. Tragically this happens all to often in old age with the onset of Alzheimer's and other debilitating diseases. So once the brain is dead and creamated, the personality of the deceased no longer exists. The memories, language, intellect, are all gone never to exist again. Would God really re-establish that person physically (by somehow magically re-creating their brain physically) just so that he could show them he is right after all and to punish them by separating them from him for an eternity? We know the God of the Bible is petty, but that takes it to a whole new level.

So, if you are one of those Christians who are still struggling with the whole issue of fear of hell, or if you are one of those newish atheists who still occasionally feel the tug of Pascal's Wager out of fear of being wrong after all, then relax. Think it through. There is no hell. The whole concept makes absolutely no sense at all. It is not at all reasonable.

Instead, go have a glass of Johnnie Walker (no ice), sit down with a good bit of writing by Christopher Hitchens, and enjoy what he had to offer the world. His writings are immortal and heavenly.

Good-bye Hitch

Photo courtesy of Google Images

Christopher Hitchens died yesterday. When I first started writing that sentence, I paused after writing "Christopher Hitchens" and wondered what descriptive would best fit following his name. I came up with a blank. Not because he didn't do any one particular thing well, but rather because he was well known for so many things. Christopher Hitchens, author, journalist, essayist, contrarian, iconoclast, debater, and atheist, died yesterday. There, perhaps that's more accurate.

We all knew this was coming. Hitchens has been ill with oesophageal cancer for some time and in his latest public appearance in Texas in October he appeared incredibly gaunt and looked close to death's door. It is not surprising that was his last public appearance. Dying from cancer is probably not the way anyone would choose to go. It is undoubtedly painful, slow, and involves all sorts of peripheral dysfunction along the way. As Jack Nicholson so aptly puts it in the film The Bucket List: "Some lucky bastard is having a heart attack right now." Yet Hitchens retained his dignity, his intellect, his wit, and his stamina until very near to the end. By all accounts he was still writing while in his hospital room in the last few weeks of life.

Christopher Hitchens was a remarkable man. It would be easy to dislike him, for he refused to engage in the normal apologetic approach that often permeates human interaction. When he held a point of view he let others know, unapolagetically. When he disagreed with someone he most certainly let them know, and again did so unapologetically. I don't believe that he did so in order to be abrasive but rather simply because he was more concerned with rational thought than he was with appearing polite and agreeable. But I did not dislike Hitchens. I most certainly liked what I knew of him from the public arena. His writing is brilliant. If one is able to write one paragraph as well as Hitchens wrote entire books, one would be doing well. I once heard him say in an interview that he estimates he wrote at least 1,000 words a day. Try to do that on any given day and you might succeed. Try to write 1,000 words sewn together with quality, day after day for decades and you may find that you're not up to the task. But Hitchens most certainly was up to the task, all the more impressive considering much of his writing was presumably combined with a good measure of Johnnie Walker, his favourite "amber restorative". Hitchens also made enemies, of course, due to his most recent fame as an atheist author. Anyone who holds a religious position felt the need to defend their position against his relentless attack on the irrational, superstitious beliefs of the religious.

There are a myriad of Hitchens quotes, and many are some of my favourite quotes. One of my favourites seems particularly appropriate to Hitchens' character. Following the death of Jerry Falwell in 2007, Hitchens was quoted as saying that: "Jerry Falwell was so full of shit that if you gave him an enema you could bury what was left in a matchbox."

For Hitchens himself I doubt a boxcar would suffice.

Rick Perry: Another Step Backwards

I am sometimes reluctant to quote Richard Dawkins too much. I shouldn’t be. He is, after all, a brilliant mind who possesses an enviable skill of succinctly and understandably presenting a rational point of view. Yet, sadly, one of the more hateful and ignorant comments against atheism by the fundamentalist crowd is that Prof. Dawkins is held as the deity of the atheists. That atheism is nothing more than a religion itself.

So, by quoting Dawkins, I sometimes feel like it may appear that I am illustrating the claim of these fundamentalists that Dawkins is the worshipped deity of atheism. But, those who retain any level of open-mindedness at all will appreciate that is nonsense. I think Dawkins is a brilliant man, but he’s certainly not my god. I question everything he says and writes. Sometimes I disagree with what he says, but often I agree and realize that he has very carefully thought out his views before sharing them.

In any case, recently Dawkins had what I would call a characteristically succinct and rational response to Rick Perry, the current governor of Texas and aspiring candidate for President of the United States. Mr. Perry is, of course, in favour of the teaching of intelligent design, that thinly veiled version of creationism that has crept into some science classes in the U.S. Perry was recently asked about evolution and he responded:

"It's a theory that's out there," Perry told the child. "It's got some gaps in it. In Texas we teach both Creationism and evolution."

This quote, short though it is, stunningly exposes Perry’s ignorance. No one, who has the least grasp of science and reality, could ever state that evolution is “a theory that’s out there.” Who, in their right mind, would say something similar about gravity or heliocentricity?

Dawkins’ response, which follows below, is a very good example of how a ridiculous and dangerously ignorant point of view like Perry’s can be blown away with a bit of rational thought:

“There is nothing unusual about Governor Rick Perry. Uneducated fools can be found in every country and every period of history, and they are not unknown in high office. What is unusual about today's Republican party (I disavow the ridiculous ‘GOP' nickname, because the party of Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt has lately forfeited all claim to be considered ‘grand') is this: In any other party and in any other country, an individual may occasionally rise to the top in spite of being an uneducated ignoramus. In today's Republican Party ‘in spite of' is not the phrase we need. Ignorance and lack of education are positive qualifications, bordering on obligatory. Intellect, knowledge and linguistic mastery are mistrusted by Republican voters, who, when choosing a president, would apparently prefer someone like themselves over someone actually qualified for the job.

...The population of the United States is more than 300 million and it includes some of the best and brightest that the human species has to offer, probably more so than any other country in the world. There is surely something wrong with a system for choosing a leader when, given a pool of such talent and a process that occupies more than a year and consumes billions of dollars, what rises to the top of the heap is George W Bush. Or when the likes of Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann or Sarah Palin can be mentioned as even remote possibilities.

...a politician's attitude to evolution, however peripheral it might seem, is a surprisingly apposite litmus test of more general inadequacy. This is because unlike, say, string theory where scientific opinion is genuinely divided, there is about the fact of evolution no doubt at all. Evolution is a fact, as securely established as any in science, and he who denies it betrays woeful ignorance and lack of education, which likely extends to other fields as well. Evolution is not some recondite backwater of science, ignorance of which would be pardonable. It is the stunningly simple but elegant explanation of our very existence and the existence of every living creature on the planet. Thanks to Darwin, we now understand why we are here and why we are the way we are. You cannot be ignorant of evolution and be a cultivated and adequate citizen of today.”

That last sentence is worth repeating: “You cannot be ignorant of evolution and be a cultivated and adequate citizen of today.” So true. This short statement so adequately explains why the issue of denial of evolution in politics is so important. Gary Goodyear, the Minister of State for Science and Technology in Canada is, as I’ve written before, a creationist. Many of my fellow citizens probably feel that is irrelevant to his ability to do his job. But, as Dawkins puts it, the fact that people like Perry and Goodyear reject a basic part of the reality of the world we live in shows that they are woefully ignorant and uneducated. In Goodyear’s case it is a double whammy. Not only is he an inadequate citizen of today who shouldn’t even be in politics to begin with, he is the Minister responsible for science in Canada. What a tragedy.

What is Atheism IV: Atheism is not…

There are many misconceptions of atheism. Those who are not atheist, by definition, believe in a god (or at least in the concept of theism). Most people who are not atheists, I would suggest, believe in the personal, meddling, prayer-answering God of the Bible. Atheism for them, therefore, is an evil detestable concept. There is no need to understand it for it stems from Satan and is a path that leads away from God – precisely what they are trying not to achieve in their lives. I believe that failure to even try to understand someone else’s point of view, close-mindedness, is the root of much evil in this world. The conflicts in the Middle East, the tensions between the predominantly Christian West and the predominantly Muslim East, and even conflicts within personal relationship such as a marriage, would all be eased somewhat simply by a genuine attempt to understand the other party’s point of view. There are very, very few circumstances in life where one side of a conflict is simply evil and out to destroy all that is good. Yet, that portrayal is common (necessary even?) in wars and much of our society.

So, depending on your particular beliefs, it may be of some benefit to read my personal opinion, as an atheist, of what atheism is and is not. I spend a fair bit of time engaging with both atheists and believers in a religion. Almost without fail, the religious misunderstand atheism, often deliberately so, and almost always are disinterested in learning about it and actually understanding it. It is easier to fear, hate, and reject than it is to learn, understand, and then perhaps politely disagree.

Atheists don’t believe in anything. This is a common perception among the religious. I have been told that I don’t believe in anything if I’m an atheist. There is a tragic video available on the internet in which one of the world’s more famous atheists, Richard Dawkins, interviews one of the world’s more fanatical and close-minded believers in religion, Yousef Al-Khattab. In this Yousef tells Richard Dawkins that he doesn’t believe in anything. This was actually one of the first places I encountered this attitude, but since then I have encountered it personally many times. My answer is thus: atheists do not believe in gods but that does not mean we do not believe in anything. If I did not believe in anything, then that would mean that I don’t believe in: human rights, education, the scientific method, my family, love, environmentalism, and forgiveness. However, I do very much believe in these things. The difference, perhaps one of semantics, is that I do not believe in anything for which there is no evidence. That, perhaps, is a more accurate statement about many atheists. I see no problem with not believing in things for which there is no evidence. There is evidence for all of the things I list above, and for a great many more things that have a positive influence in the world.

Atheists proselytize in just the same way that the religious do. Proselytizing is defined as the act of attempting to convert people to another opinion and, particularly, another religion (Wikipedia), or as inducing someone to convert to one’s faith or to recruit someone to join one’s party, institution, or cause (Merriam-Webster). None of these definitions fit what an atheist could do in conversation about atheism with the exception, perhaps, of the final one. Atheists cannot, by definition, attempt to convert someone to their faith (atheism is not a faith) or religion (atheism is not a religion), or party, or institution. It is possible that atheists could be defined as proselytizing by attempting to convert someone to their opinion or cause, but even that would be unusual among atheists. Most true atheists that I know are interested in rational discussion in which people arrive at their own point of view or opinion so long as it is reasonable and rational. I do, of course, actually believe that if everyone was capable of thinking completely rationally, reasonably, and used evidence to support their beliefs, then everyone would logically end up as an atheist, or at least as an agnostic. But that is quite different than preaching to people that they should convert to atheism. If I meet someone of religion who has rationally and reasonably examined their religion and still manages to explain in a logical manner why they believe in it, then I respect that person’s belief and have no interest in trying to convert them to atheism. That is in direct opposition to most people of religion. I have yet to meet anyone of religion who does not, as an underlying theme, hope that eventually I will join their faith (and therefore be saved).

Atheists have no basis for morality. This seems to be a universal (though I hate using that term inappropriately to define something in human behaviour which could by definition be no more than global) assumption and position of the religious towards atheists. Since you don’t believe in a god, you have no basis to form moral decisions. You might behave morally, presumably ultimately because you are afraid of going to prison in a country in which the laws are based on Christian morality, but as an atheist you have no inherent basis for morality. [Before I continue, I simply have to address as a side note the notion of a country based on Christian or Biblical morality. There is no such country in the world, thank goodness, and I hope to never see one, let alone live in one. For Americans in particular, this is a point of significant debate. So many Christians argue that their country was founded as a Christian nation (“one nation under God”, et cetera), and the debate about the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the intentions of the founding fathers can go on fruitlessly for hours. In reality, though, one need only read the Bible to recognize that even the most extremist Christian politicians such as Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin, and Mike Huckabee don’t actually want their nation’s laws based on the Bible. Read through the Old Testament books dealing with the law and then ask yourself if you really want to live in such a country. If you think the New Testament is any better, then ask yourself how a nation would be built around the concept of neighbourly love. How would you imprison someone for not loving their neighbour? Would I get a ticket from a policeman each time I drove by someone with a flat tire without helping them out? Would the laws in a Christian nation require that you hate your mother and father? Would marriage of a divorcee be illegal? Would lust be enough for imprisonment? If you lost a lawsuit to a large corporation, would you be required to pay more than the settlement amount? If you found an old man and forced him to carry something for you for one mile, would he then be required by law to carry it for you for two miles? If you were the victim of theft, would you be required by law not to try to get it back? These are all the darker sides of a hypothetical Christian nation that no one ever considers.]

But perhaps the first place to start with this issue of atheists having no basis for morality is to look at what morality really is and where it comes from. Morality can be defined as a set of behaviours or beliefs that differentiate right from wrong. My understanding of the religious claim of no morality amongst atheists is that, since we have no god to tell us what is right and what is wrong, then our morality is subjective rather than objective and as soon as you make morality subjective then anything is permitted or justifiable. My understanding of morality, however, is that it does not originate from a deity. (How could it when there are no deities?). Morality is a human construct. It originates from within humanity. We, as humans, have decided that things like murder and rape are immoral. Further, I would point out that morality is in fact much more subjective among the religious than it is among atheists. I have yet to find many religious people who can’t find some way of justifying killing another human being. Whether it is through capital punishment, a “just” war, retribution for a horrible act, or sanctioned by their own deity, most people of religion, at least if they accept the Bible to be true, have to accept that at some point killing other humans has been moral. So sometimes killing other people is immoral and sometimes it is moral. That, to me, is a subjective definition. My position is that killing other humans is immoral in all cases. That is pretty objective. I can’t find a scenario in which it would be moral to do so. (That is not to say I wouldn’t be tempted to do so in certain circumstances. Often in a conversation like this, someone will ask me what I would do if someone kidnapped and harmed or killed my own child. My answer is that, as a parent, of course I would feel like killing the perpetrator, especially if it increased my chances of recovering my child. But that would not make it moral). So, in my opinion, morality is actually less subjective among atheists than it is among the religious. But whether it is subjective or objective is not really the point. Morality is a human quality. We, as humans, invented it. Animals do not seem to have morality. They may have certain acceptable behaviours, but they are incapable of defining certain behaviours as right or wrong. It is likely that human morality varies a bit through cultures and has likely changed a bit over the time that humans have existed. But some basics have likely always been part of the human moral code. How could murder, within one’s own tight knit group, ever be considered moral? If it were, then people would be killing each other on a whim each time it was convenient to do so. Human society could not function. Perhaps in the distant past when humans had yet to form into clans, this may have been the case, but in order for humans to function in cooperative groups there needs to be some understanding that killing each other without reason is wrong. Somewhere along the line, people must have wondered where this feeling of “wrong” came from and, as religion evolved, ascribed it to a deity. The deity must have told us that murder is wrong, otherwise how else would we know that it is so? But the reality is that the knowledge that it was wrong was already there. If all that is not enough, then just look at behaviours of atheists and religious people. Murder rates are not higher among atheists, theft is not higher, rape is not higher, child abuse is not higher, tax fraud is not higher, none of the behaviours we might consider immoral are more common among atheists than among religious people. In fact, there are an overwhelmingly higher proportion of Christians in American jails than there are atheists. Atheists might make up somewhere around 10% of the American population (depending on your statistics source) but don’t make up anywhere near that percentage of the prison population. Some statistics cite it as low as below 1%. Maybe atheists are just better at not getting caught…

Atheists should not be allowed to teach children. Actually, most atheist teachers aren’t interested in teaching about atheism. They are interested in keeping their personal views and beliefs out of the classroom as much as possible and teaching the curriculum. I think a much stronger case can be made against having Christians teach (especially when it comes to science) than can be made against having atheists teach. What is a Christian teacher to do when they come across some curriculum that contradicts their personal beliefs? (For example: evolution, conclusions bases on evidence, etc.). An atheist teacher never has this problem because, so long as the curriculum is based in evidence and truth, then the atheist teacher is happy to teach it.

If you’ve been brought up in a religion, or find yourself believing a religion, then perhaps you’ve never given much thought to treating atheists with respect. Perhaps you’ve never thought about trying to understand atheism. Perhaps, if you are from a very fundamentalist religion, you even see atheism as evil or learning about atheism as a path to the devil. It is not. It is simply a way of looking at the world we live in. In particular, it involves looking at the world we live in and accepting it for what it is, based on the evidence that is available to us. Most atheists have managed, or at least try on a regular basis, to set aside their innate fear of death or hope for an afterlife, have set aside the stories they were told as children which are not based in evidence, and have set aside any familial or social pressures to conform to a religion that may be dominant in their culture. Consider, before you blindly reject atheism and atheists, how you would feel if someone of a different religion than your own rejected yours before they fully understood it. Suppose you are a Jew and you ran into a Christian who was horrified by your habit of drinking blood from Christian children. Suppose you are a Muslim and you run into a Christian who can’t understand why you want to strap a nuclear bomb to your back and walk into Manhattan. Suppose you are a Christian who meets a Muslim who hates your ideology of thinking that carpet bombing children in other countries is the path to world peace. All of these misperceptions would, of course, outrage anyone of those respective religions. The above listed misperceptions about atheism are no less outrageous.

Never Really Cared for Collecting Stamps Anyway

I recently wrote a post about why atheists don't keep their views to themselves and another post about whether atheism is arrogance. As usual, any idea I can say or write can usually be said or written better by someone else. Today I saw this video and thought it was a succinct summary of these issues...

Evidence-Chasing

Anyone who knows me or has read much of my writing knows that I try to put value on evidence. I always have in my daily life, and have always tried to approach life in a rational way. My logical, evidence-based approach to life is probably just part of my personality, and one that does occasionally drive people around me a bit crazy. Humans are emotional beings. We often make snap illogical decisions in life that have profound consequences. I’m no exception, I’m still an emotional person too, but I do think I have a more evidence-based approach to life than most. This is probably the biggest factor in eventually leading me to leave the Christian faith. Sometimes I think people think this means I think I am always right. It doesn’t, of course, though I can understand why I sometimes come across that way. When you try to align your beliefs and opinions with evidence, and then back them up with evidence when challenged, it can appear that you are close minded because you’ve already examined your positions quite carefully. Often, though, I’ll realize that my position on something is not evidence-based and then I must alter my position.

One of the very difficult things to do in life, however, is to really objectively examine evidence without bias. We all have biases, and we are all tempted all the time to try to make our observations of evidence fit our conclusion or opinion about something. On a simple everyday level this happens all the time in the world of sports. Any fan of a sports team will typically make observations fit their held belief that their team is best. This might manifest itself as bias in observations of officiating during a match, or ignoring evidence that doesn’t support a held opinion that a particular favoured athlete is the best at what they do. In the world of sports this probably doesn’t matter so much and does lead to the exciting, passionate, and endless debates about who really is the better team or player. However, in the world of science or religion, this is not a good approach. Making evidence fit a preconceived opinion or belief is disastrous in science as it can easily lead to false interpretation of results or findings. This happens all the time in science, but fortunately the process of modern science is relatively good at catching mistakes. An example is the “finding” some years ago that child vaccinations lead to an increased risk of autism. In 1998 The Lancet, a highly regarded medical journal, published a study that found an increased risk of autism among children exposed to routine vaccinations. It is generally accepted now that this is not the case, and that the lead scientist had allowed his biases to cause a misinterpretation and some bad science. The Lancet has since retracted the publication, but unfortunately this mistake has had major implications in the health of many young children as their parents have foolishly avoided vaccinating their kids against some diseases that are easily preventable. This is an example of some major consequences of a relatively minor bit of evidence-chasing.

In religion too, this sort of thing happens. Sometimes the consequences are even more profound. Sometimes the result of evidence-chasing is that thousands of children are raised to believe something that is not true, and perhaps even worse, to turn into evidence-chasers themselves (think of the common rejection of evolutionary biology in high schools in the U.S., for example). To someone with an education in science, spotting evidence-chasing among things like creationist opinions is relatively easy, but it can crop up as a much more subtle way that might initially appear like authentic rationalism even when it is not. I recently encountered an example of this in an exchange I had with someone on the internet with respect to their writing. In fairness to this person, they will remain anonymous as I have not gained their permission to use their opinions in this example. My example requires a bit of background.

There are a number of websites that act as forums for people who have left Christianity and embraced agnosticism, atheism, or who have simply stopped believing in the god of their upbringing. On one such website recently, a Christian started to make comments. He then reported on his experience on this forum on his own blog in an article that talked about his experiences in an atheist community. I felt that his post on the blog was deliberately intended to be a bit inflammatory and deliberately designed to not give people (“the atheists”) on the webpage the benefit of the doubt. A photograph was attached to the blog, one which showed a large crowd of people (the majority of whom were incidentally non-white; Time magazine’s O.J. Simpson legacy of skin darkening sadly lives on) shouting and holding their hands in the air with thumbs pointed down. I can’t imagine for a moment that the photo is either a group of atheists or a group of former Christians. It is clearly just a group of people protesting something loudly. I think the photograph was attached with the intention of supporting the overall impression that “atheists” (it was not a group of atheists per se that the blog author had engaged with, but a mix of former Christians) are unreasonable, loud people who like can't be reasoned with, much like any large group of protesters. To be fair, there were a number of impolite and unreasonable comments made towards this person on the web page forum, but I felt they were done out of frustration at a persistently dogmatic point of view. Again, the web page is not an atheist website and a number of the people he engaged with were not atheists. This was pointed out to him a number of times by various people making comments on his blog but, as far as I know, he never acknowledged the error or misrepresentation.

The crux of his blog post was five points about atheists that he summarizes from his experience on the (non-atheist) web page. As you can see, some Christians have a real problem distinguishing an atheist from anyone who isn’t a Christian. Briefly then, his five summary points of the views of atheists, where:

1. Christians are idiots.
2. Atheists are morally superior to Christians.
3. God is evil.
4. The Bible is a bunch of bunk.
5. Anyone who would question non-belief is not wanted.

I don’t need to go into the details of his explanations of these five points because they are not really what I want to discuss, though he does attempt to justify them reasonably and back them up through his experiences in the exchanges he had. My point is not to refute or critique his blog posting in general, but rather to establish the background of some serious evidence-chasing at the end.

I wrote a comment expressing my point of view on these five points as follows:

I would agree with points 2 - 4. Points 1 and 5 I would disagree with.

1. Christians are not idiots. An idiot is typically considered to be someone who is mentally deficient. It is further normally intended as a derogatory term, though technically it need not be. To claim that a large group of people are idiots (presumably of lower I.Q.) based on their religious beliefs is inaccurate and likely easy to disprove. I have met many highly intelligent Christians and many atheists of lower than average intelligence. What I would say about Christians, though sweeping generalizations are often inherently unfair, is that they are typically irrational, ignorant (often deliberately so), illogical, and very dogmatic, specifically when it comes to thinking about and discussing their religious beliefs. Unlike idiocy, none of those descriptions are derogatory. They are simply descriptions. But, in my pretty extensive experiences in relating to Christians and in having been one myself, I would state that the most accurate description of Christians is that they are typically not actually interested in discovery and truth, but rather in making any piece of information gathered to fit a preconceived conclusion and world view that they have decided from the outset will never fundamentally change.

2. Yes, with a qualifier. I would say more accurately that atheism is morally superior to Christianity rather than comparing individuals. One need not delve into the darker parts of Yahweh's character and instructions to decipher how horrendously evil his morality is. One need only think of the notion of teaching children about hell without a shred of evidence to support it.

3. Yes, assuming that you are talking about the Biblical god Yahweh. God, of course, doesn't exist as an entity, but the concept of him is horrifically evil, and his entire raison d'etre (within the Bible, not in reality) is to allow people to control other people. That in itself is an evil notion. I can't imagine anyone reading the Bible with an open mind and coming to any other reasonable conclusion. If humans behaved in the way God condoned in the Bible, they would make Hitler look like a normal political leader.

4. Without doubt. The Biblical contradictions with established science are astounding, sometimes amusingly so. The book was clearly written by men who had the knowledge you would expect of the times that it was written. Many events in the book are so physically impossible that they have to be taken as allegory by any rational human. Once you start taking the book as figuratively then you realize that they whole thing can be discarded as fiction. Further, the contradictions within the book itself make it completely unbelievable.

5. Certainly not. Questioning anything and everything is always a good idea. Though, in practice I'm not sure how you question non-belief in a phenomenon. A more logical approach is to question belief. I don't believe in the tooth fairy, but I also don't feel any need to question why I don't believe in her. The question never has reason to enter my consciousness. If someone presented themselves to me as an honest believer in the tooth-fairy and presented some evidence in support, then I would examine the evidence and my position. Same with Christianity and God. But I have yet to see any evidence ever presented in support of the existence of the Biblical God.

Now we finally leave the background and get to the real point of evidence-chasing. In response, the individual in question stated:

Thanks for the comment; it seemed very well-thought-out.  One question for you... in my short amount of time studying these things (I'm trying to start with fundamental scientific questions about God and atheism and the existence of god before I delve into questions about Christianity more deeply), I've run into several strong points of evidence about the existence of a god (not necessarily about the Christian God).  How do you deal with these issues:

1. The laws of nature: that nature obeys laws (and has regularities) is evidence that there is a God.
2. The existence of the cosmos: that there exists any universe at all, and that it is fine-tuned for the existence of life, is evidence that there is a God.
3. The presence of life: that there is life at all is evidence that there is a God.  Scientists Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe calculated in the early 1980s the probability of life forming, and placed the odds at one in 10^40,000.
4. Human consciousness: The existence of consciousness in humans is something that science cannot explain.

The first three of those questions were things that Antony Flew cited as reasons he stopped being an atheist, after years of being a prominent atheist, and started believing in a god (deistic).  The last question is just one that I have tacked on, because it's something that troubles me.

These are things that I cannot yet reconcile with an atheistic viewpoint, and I wonder how you've answered them?

As you can see, this is no run-of-the-mill Christian evidence denier that we’re dealing with. This is not someone whose first attempt at debunking atheism is to run to the tired old arguments in support of creationism. Learning to examine the evidence and then form your conclusions is relatively simple when dealing with things like Noah’s flood or talking donkeys, and at first glance you might be tempted to think this individual has genuinely examined the evidence and finds a few major pieces of evidence in support of a god. But, this is nothing more than basic evidence-chasing yet again. My response to these four points:

Perhaps I can assume from your response that you accept that lack of evidence is a valid reason to reject the notion of deities, and your position is that there is evidence and therefore you accept the notion of a god. In response to your four points:

1. I don’t see how the laws of nature are evidence that there is a god. Regularities occur in nature. There is gravity where there is mass. So what? Why does that mean there is a god?

2. We know a lot about the origins of the universe, but we still know precious little about it compared to what remains to be known. Lack of understanding of the origins does not logically provide evidence that the origins were magic (see my comparisons below to phenomena that used to seem like magic to less knowledgeable humans).

3. Hoyle’s numbers are widely rejected by mainstream science. Hoyle also believed that life did not originate on earth but came about by panspermia which is not scientifically supported. But even if you accept that the probability of life forming is slim, life did form. Therefore it must be both physically possible and statistically possible because we do know that it happened. Looking around us and saying that we’re so unlikely to exist that there must be a god who put us here is to go about it backwards. We are here, we know how life evolves given the right conditions, and therefore the probability is, by definition, within the realm of possibility.

4. As with your first point, I fail to see how human consciousness is evidence for a god. I would disagree that science cannot explain it. Neuroscience has a lot to say about the nature of human consciousness, as does evolution. That we have self awareness, prior knowledge of our own death, language, etc., are all within the process of human
evolution.

Even if you don’t accept my explanations point by point, they can all also be dismissed outright since none of these issues is specific evidence for a god, they are simply problems some people have with the, as yet, partly unexplained. Two analogies to help explain what I mean. Firstly, if we were having this conversation several thousand years ago, similar points you might raise as evidence of a god could be: occasionally the earth moves uncontrollably and randomly; sometimes healthy people suddenly and randomly get sick and die; on some nights huge flashes of light shoot from the sky and destroy things on earth, therefore there must be a god. In other words, I perceive all four points as essentially the same argument: we can’t fully explain certain things yet, therefore there must be a god responsible for these things. Secondly, suppose I was having this conversation with someone who believed we are all living within a computer programme much like the movie The Matrix. They might logically try to use all the same four points in support of their belief. In other words, there is no specificity towards deities in your points. Not to mention narrowing it down to a specific god such as the Christian god.

As you can see from my response, I point out that these four points are nothing more than a modern day exasperation at gaps in our scientific understanding. They are nothing more than a modern day version of the Ancient Greeks' formation of a Poseidon hypothesis resulting from observations of ocean storms. The point about Hoyle in particular is classic evidence-chasing. This individual effectively goes about his search for evidence to support his conclusion (that life could not have happened without the intervention of a deity) by wondering: “There must be a scientist out there somewhere who supports this notion. Ah yes, Hoyle, he’ll do.” Rather than examining all the evidence about the beginnings of life, examining how Hoyle’s theories were received in the scientific community, and realizing that he is clinging to one piece of false evidence in support of a pet theory rather than vice versa. So far the conversation has ended at this point and I’ve had no further response.

So, evidence-chasing comes at all levels of sophistication. It can crop up in conversation between two NBA fans in support of their pet favourite team, it can crop up in the study of vaccinations and health published at the highest levels of science, and it can crop up in a personal discussion involving the same old tired process of trying to find a reason to support your conclusion that god exists.