Atheism

        

In my Blog The God Hypothesis I argued that a score of  “6.9” (where “1” equals a theist and a “7” an atheist) on Dawkins’ Spectrum of theistic probability was the most rational position to take on the question of the existence of God.  I came to this conclusion after evaluating four formal arguments and three informal arguments supporting the existence of God and two arguments against it.  I will briefly review a few of those arguments here and invite readers interested in more detail to read it for their selves at,  Needlefish Chronicles. Why “6.9” and not “7?”  My answer demonstrates a major difference between science and religion.  Science embraces uncertainty, whereas religion rejects it.  Science stands by ready to dismiss any of its most cherished theories any time the evidence warrants it.  One can in fact win a Nobel Prize in physics for being wrong as was the case of  Albert Michelson and Edward Morley. They spent years trying to prove that the speed of light was variable depending its direction of travel relative to the earth’s path around the sun.  Michelson hypothesized that light would move faster when traveling in the same direction as the earth. They shared the 1907 Nobel Prize in physics for what has been described as the “most famous failed experiment” in history.  Science also abhors authority (dogma) while religion celebrates it and demands unquestioning acceptance.  In Einstein’s words, “Blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth.”

In the God Hypothesis I specified the God Hypothesis as a theistic one where a personal God interacts with mankind doing such things as answering prayers and performing miracles.  I could have just as easily defined a deistic God hypothesis where an impersonal God established the “laws of nature” and then withdrew allowing the universe to operate according to those laws. The theistic God Hypothesis can be considered the strong God Hypothesis and the deistic God Hypothesis the weak one.  Acceptance of the weak hypothesis defines a deist.  Many of America’s founding fathers were deists as well as most scientists such as Einstein who once said, “It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropomorphic concept which I cannot take seriously.”

I prefer Dawkins’ Spectrum of theistic probability because it eliminates the dogma of certainty when considering a question that is in fact unknowable (at least at this time).  Religious labels are only a bit of shorthand useful for providing a quick answer to complex questions or to demonize people you dislike.  Howard Bloom, a polymath, calls himself a “cold stone atheist.”  How does that compare to a “6.9” on Dawkins’ scale and what is his reasoning?  Or an even tougher question, where should a deists be placed on the scale?  For me “agnostic” is the most troubling label and the most abused.  Would it be a  “4.0?”  I consider myself a “weak” atheist (deist) in part because of formal arguments such the Epicurean Trilemma,  Karl Popper's Falsification Principle, Hume’s Test for Miracles, and Ockham's Razor (lex parsimoniae).

                                                         Epicurean Trilemma

Epicurus (341–270 BCE) was an ancient Greek philosopher and the author of the Epicurean Trilemma, “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”  The Epicurean Trilemma has been a thorn in the side of theologians and Christian apologists for over two thousand years. In my opinion the Epicurean Trilemma is sufficient justification to reject the strong God Hypothesis, but not the weak God Hypothesis.

                                            Karl Popper's Falsification Principle

Karl Popper’s Falsification Principle says for any theory to be true, there must be a way to imagine or show that it is false.  For example, Darwin’s Theory of Evolution makes a host of predictions and could be falsified by demonstrating that any one of its predictions was not true.  In over one-hundred and fifty years this has not happened, but it could.  On the other hand, the weak God Hypothesis cannot be falsified since it does not make any predictions.  Therefore on the basis of Karl Popper’s Falsification Principle alone, the weak hypothesis could be comfortably rejected.  I myself accept it “provisionally” until such time that better evidence or argument is available.

                                                        Hume’s Test for Miracles

Every hypothesis must have alternative explanations for what is being claimed.  In the case of the claim that God created the universe, is there any other explanation?  Yes, cosmologists offer the “Big Bang” as an alternative argument.  Theists maintain (without any proof) that “you cannot create something out of nothing” (the idea of Ex nihilo).  Physicists have demonstrated that the problem is not Ex nihilo, but the impossibility of creating “nothing” to begin with because “virtual” particles are always present even in “empty” space.  These  “virtual” particles are just an inherent part of the universe.  Hume’s Test for Miracles states that for a miracle to be true, the alternatives to the miracle would have to be greater than the miracle being claimed.  The idea of a supernatural deity creating the universe has to be the greatest miracle ever.  For it to be true the “Big Bang” would have to be even more miraculous than the idea of a supernatural deity.  Therefore, the God Hypothesis fails Hume’s Test for Miracles.

                                                                Ockham's Razor

Ockham's Razor is an argument based on the principle of parsimony or economy of thought.  Simply stated, it is the appealing idea that if there are conflicting alternatives for explaining any
question of substance, then the simpler of them is most likely the correct one.  The most famous equation in history, Einstein’s e=mc² is a classical example (energy = mass times the speed of light squared).  Now compare the Big Bang theory to the God Hypothesis as an explanation for the universe.  Which one is the simpler?  Of course,  both explanations are quite complex, but considering the unlimited powers of a supernatural being, the Big Bang has to be the simpler and according to Ockham's Razor is more likely to be true.  The Bible itself confirms this in Ecclesiastes 8:17 (New Living Translation), “I realized that no one can discover everything God is doing under the sun [too complex]. Not even the wisest people discover everything, no matter what they claim.”
               
Stephen Hawkins is one of the best known theoretical physicist and cosmologist in the world today.  He was the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics (a position once held by Isaac Newton) at the University of Cambridge between 1979 and 2009.  He and others have demonstrated how the universe could have been created by the “laws of nature” without the assistance of God.  His argument is buttressed by the “Law of Parsimony.” It is not possible to imagine a more efficient method and God above all else must be efficient or he/she cannot be God.  Efficiency is the heart and soul of engineering and the creator of the universe must be an engineer.  Also, please note that the  "Law of Parsimony" is a further refutation of Anselm's Ontological argument.

Some readers may have sensed a contradiction between rejecting the strong God Hypothesis (atheist) and accepting the weak God Hypothesis (deist).  No, it is just a matter of how one describes the nature of God, and depending on which hypothesis is used, both positions can be consistent.  This is the whole problem with labels, especially the label atheist.  People of faith (theists) have gone out their way to discredit atheism.  For example, describing the communist during the Cold War as “godless communist” (atheists must be communists!).  Atheists are routinely thought to be immoral based on the disproved idea that morals can only come from God, and without God people will not be able to tell right from wrong. Communism is in fact a dogma in the same way Christianity or Islam is a dogma.  Adherents of both are not permitted to question any aspect of the proclaimed doctrine.  The major tenets of morality are found in every culture regardless of their predominant religion.  In the United States, if you ask someone if they believe in God, they almost never ask “which” God you are referring to.  Most people will assume you are referring to the Christian God.  Many atheists will answer “agnostic,” or perhaps “deist.”  However, when polled about their religious preference, “none” consistently polls around 20%.  About 53% of the world’s people claim to be followers of one of the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, or Islam) and, of course, accept the strong God Hypothesis.  Since most of my fellow Americans are (or claim to be) Christians, I will share my reasons why I am not a Christian on the grounds of morality and failed prophecy.

                                                              Grounds of Morality

Original sin and the virtue of sacrifice are deeply rooted in Christian doctrine.  The idea that children are responsible for the sins or bad acts of their parents is repugnant to most people.  For example, please consider the April 2014 case of Mary Grice.  She was four years old in 1960 when her father died leaving her mother, Sadie, with five children to raise. Sadie received survivor benefits from Social Security until her children turned age 18.  In 2014 after 37 years of silence and four years after Sadie Grice died, the Social Security Administration claims it overpaid someone in the Grice family in 1977, and is now coming after her daughter Mary for repayment.  Few if any people will see this decision as a moral one, even if they fail to view it as a matter of original sin.

The idea of sacrifice (animal or human) is a reprehensible idea.  If an all-powerful deity such as God wanted to absolve his children of sin, surely he could have thought up a better way than torturing and killing his “son.”  I personally reject the idea of sacrifice as an immoral act.  Every time I see someone wearing a cross around their neck, I am reminded of George Carlin when he asked the question, “If Christ had been killed in an electric chair, would Christians wear a replica of an electric chair around their neck?”


                                                             Failed Prophecy

In Matthew (16: 28) Jesus is very certain about when he would return to earth. “Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”  In this passage, Jesus was talking to his disciples and he makes it very clear that some of them “will not taste death” until he returns.  Since the disciples are long-ago dead, this is a failed prophecy.  It should be noted that this was the first of many failed prophecies predicting the second coming of Christ.  Failed prophecies number in the thousands since the death of Christ.  Harold Camping made a highly publicized prediction that the rapture would occur on October 21, 2011.  Warren Jeffs, the president of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints predicted the end of the world would happen on December 23, 2012.  When it did not happen, he blamed it on his followers' lack of faith and changed the date to December 31, 2012 for another failed prophecy.  Fortunately, Warren Jeffs is now in prison, having been convicted of raping numbers of young girls in the name of religion.

Predicting the end of the world or the second coming of Christ has become a popular and  profitable cottage industry.  Jeane Dixon predicts it will occur in the year 2020 after her previous prediction of  February 4, 1962 failed.  John Hagee, a popular TV evangelist predicted that the end will come between April 2014 and March 2015 or in less than a year as this is written.  Predicting “end times” is an extremely profitable venture.  For example, in 2005 Jerry Jenkins and Tim LaHaye (authors of the Left Behind series) ranked 9th according to Amazon’s 10th Anniversary Hall of Fame based on the numbers of books sold at Amazon.com.  Scientists are the only people on the planet with an “end time” prediction based on facts and not some supernatural fantasy.  It is based on the law of entropy and is sometimes called “sun death” and it will happen in about five billion years.  Many people think that is a simple matter of the sun going dark like a candle that burns out.  The truth is a much different story.  The sun will not burn out, but instead will start to burn even hotter.  This will happen when the sun’s hydrogen supply is exhausted and it then switches to “burning” hellion causing it to swell one-and-a-half times its normal size and grow more than twice as bright as it is now. The surface temperature of the earth will rise from about 68̊F to 167̊F causing all world’s oceans to evaporate and for the earth to incinerate.  And some people call this “Intelligent Design,” for the handiwork of a supernatural deity they call God!

Stephen Hawking was correct when he said, “One can't prove that God doesn't exist, but science makes God unnecessary.”  Even though the existence of God cannot be proved or disproved, it must be considered unknowable.  However, many religious claims can be tested using the tools of the science.  Consider the following question, “Does prayer work?”  This is a scientific question that has already been answered many times.  In the year 2000 the John Templeton Foundation spent $2.4 million dollars on a ten-year double-blind study on the effectiveness of prayer on the medical outcome of heart patients undergoing surgery.  In a double-blind study the participants (patients, doctors, and the people praying) and the persons administering the study are not allowed to know the critical aspects of the study including which patients are being prayed for.  Patients are assigned numbers and the people praying are only given the patient’s number.  The researchers monitored 1,802 patients at six hospitals who received coronary bypass surgery to reroute circulation around a clogged vein or artery.  The patients were divided into three groups. Two groups were prayed for and the third was not. Half the patients who received  prayers were told that they were being prayed for and half were told that they might or might not receive prayers.  Remember the doctors did not know which group the patients were in.  After analyzing complications in the 30 days after the operations, the researchers found that 59% of the patients who knew that they were being prayed for suffered complications compared with 51 percent of those who did not know.  A host of other studies has also demonstrated that the prayer is not effective.  Lou Holtz, the famous Notre Dame football coach was once asked about the effectiveness of pre-game player prayer.  He answered that prayer works best when the offensive line averages over three-hundred pounds.

There is a majesty in the understanding the secrets of the natural world.  History has clearly shown that nature guards her mysteries jealously and most of the low-hanging fruit has already been picked.  People like Newton, Darwin, and Einstein have experienced the transcendent and spiritual joy of discovering a previously unknown shining jewel in nature’s crown.  Richard Dawkins in his book The Magic of Reality gave example after example of the beauty of the universe and nature and the joy of viewing the world unencumbered by dogma and superstition.   Atheists are frequently accused of being strictly negative and lacking a meaningful and satisfying alternative to theism and super naturalism.  Some atheists have resorted to the label “humanistic secularism.”  Others use the sobriquet, “Brights” to describe their view where “Bright” is being used as a noun and not a verb.  I personally prefer the term “free thinker” but do not hide from the atheist label.

The rejection of super naturalism and dogma is the bedrock of free thinkers and skeptics.  This includes the idea that we only have one life to live and we want to live it to the fullest without any hope of some afterlife, and the scientific method and reason are the best tools available for achieving it.  Skeptics insist that actions have consequences, and no shaman or priests can absolve you from the results of your bad decisions.  We also subscribe to the idea that man is a custodian of the earth and all of its life forms and not its biblical master.  We also believe that ethics and morality are the results of years of trial and error experiments as to what actions promote human happiness and which ones do not.  We feel that the Golden Rule is morally flawed and the concept that everyone has some degree of responsibility for the happiness and well-being of our neighbors both locally and globally is superior.  In short, atheists are spiritual people who enjoy joyful ecstasy from many sources, including science, literature, music, art, nature, and most important from the inspiration and accomplishments of family, friends, and strangers both past and present.  Or in the words of Ken Wilbur, “There is more spirituality in reason's denial of God than there is in myth's affirmation of God, precisely because there is more depth... even an "atheist" acting from rational-universal compassion is more spiritual than a fundamentalist acting to convert the universe in the name of a mythic-membership god.” 


People often ask, “Why do atheists object to religion so vigorously?”  I will not rehash all the terrible things that have been done throughout history in the name of religion and duplicate countless books on the subject.  However, I highly recommend Steven Pinker’s 2013 book, The Better Angels of Our Nature for a comprehensive and balanced view of the history of violence in the world.  I object to Christianity primarily because of its assault against reason going back to Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit of the “Tree of knowledge of good and evil.” Under what system could that be bad? Once someone decides that the answer to any question is “God,” then there is not any need to look any further for a better answer.  History is full of examples where people like Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, Darwin, and Einstein had the courage to look for answers that actually explains some phenomenon and makes verifiable predictions.  This is the way the human specie has advanced by using reason to increase the storehouse of knowledge to improve the well-being of the world's people.  Relying on super naturalism can only serve as an impediment to that progress and is best discarded.  A good start would be to change our education system to teach students how to think and not what to think.


Sources

1.  The God Hypothesis (5/20/2014)  Blog (The Needlefish Chronicles)
2.  The Better Angels of Our Nature (2013) by Steven Pinker
3.  The Magic of Reality (2011) by Richard Dawkins
4.  Jesus, Interrupted (2010), by Bart D. Ehrman