Deon Barnard

Among all the screaming, bigoted, childish and patronising responses I get from Theists online, there are those few who at least try to make an attempt at a reasonable argument for God. Mostly these are arguments for “a god” in general rather than any particular god, but even a convincing argument for an unnamed God would be an interesting discussion, if the arguments were not logically invalid. Here are four common arguments for the existence of God, and reasons why the argument doesn’t work.

1. The Ontological Argument
   

The argument:

This is an argument using ‘a priori’ (logical rather than experiential) reasoning. It claims that a perfect being like God must exist in reality because we can imagine him, and he wouldn’t be perfect if he existed only in our imaginations and not in reality too.

The problem:

There are two big problems with this logic. First, it expects us to believe that any perfect thing we could imagine must exist in reality too – i.e. if I can imagine a perfect Unicorn, it must therefore exist. Secondly, it makes an assumption that “reality” outside of our imagination is somehow “better” without making any effort to prove this assumption first. This is as logical as saying, “I can imagine a perfect Drakadoodle (half Dragon, half… doodle?). It would be less than perfect if it wasn’t on TV as well as in my imagination. Therefore perfect Drakadoodles must exist on the TV.”
Impressively befuddling, but not very convincing.

1. The Argument from Design
   

The argument:

This argument basically puts forward that things in the universe are so orderly, and conditions so exactly perfect (fine-tuned) for life on Earth, that there must have been an intelligent designer.

I have seen defenders of this argument use various examples from the convenient shape of the banana in a human’s hand, to the (convenient) position of the earth in the solar system, to the complexity of various organs like the eye, which apparently could not have evolved because they would be useless in any version less complex than its current one.

The problem:

This argument puts the cart before the horse. Douglas Adams put it superbly when he said, “”This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.”

As one who plays table top war-games I am very aware of how easy it is to start thinking your dice are “on your side” when you’re rolling 6′s or “against you” when you’re rolling 1′s. The reality is of course that the dice don’t know or care about you at all; they simply follow a set of physical laws and fall in random positions.

Another way of looking at it is – imagine the universe had evolved in a different way, and because of that, a different species of intelligent being on another planet might have looked at their own good fortune (being alive) as a sign of an intelligent creator, even though those particular beings lived on a boiling planet and were themselves made of sulphur and molten rock.

The fact that we can think about these questions in this particular world with these particular conditions can quite easily be explained by random chance and really does not require the addition of a creator being at all. Furthermore, any natural scientist can testify just how NOT fine-tuned the world really is (for human life) and how, if there was a designer, we’d have to call him a really bad one. The only reasonable explanation for the spleen, the appendix and our “poorly designed” knees is that we are a product of an evolutionary process that neither thinks, nor allies itself with the human race.

… and by the way, the eye thing has been thoroughly disproved. There are many versions of the eye in nature (some creatures have two versions at the same time) all of which could be useful in any lesser, or previous, version of itself on the evolutionary track for various reasons.

1. The Cosmological Argument
   

The argument:

There is stuff in the universe – where did that stuff come from? Everything is caused by something else, so if you keep going back in time, what caused the first thing to happen? This must have been God.

The problem:

This type of reasoning asserts that if science can’t tell us exactly how the universe started then there’s only one logical answer – it must have been God. The main problem with this reasoning is that we could just as well ask, “Then what/who made God?”

Not knowing something doesn’t mean we get to simply insert God as the cover-all answer. This is called “God of the Gaps” logic. 6000 years ago humans had no idea why volcanoes erupted, so they decided it must be punishment from God. 1000 years ago we did not understand the germ theory of diseases so again we attributed illnesses to the anger of God, or even demons and spirits. Today we understand plate tectonics, genetics, germ theory and a host of other previously mystifying things which means that we no longer need to insert “God” as the answer to these mysteries.

Similarly, we may not understand right now exactly how the universe started, but that doesn’t mean we won’t in time. Until then we’ll just keep asking the questions and seeing what the evidence reveals. Theists often criticise the “Big Bang” theory because it essentially proposes that everything came from nothing, which seems unreasonable, and yet they don’t seem to have any objection to the concept of an everlasting God who always was and is and is to come.

1. The Moral Argument
   

The argument:

This argument proposes that there are universal moral laws in the world, and that somebody (God) must have commanded these moral laws. How would all people everywhere understand that say, murder is wrong, if God hadn’t created this moral law?

Some people also argue that morals are invisible and immeasurable by “scientific means” which means they must have a supernatural origin. E.g. you can’t see love, or hold love, or measure love, but you know it exists, so it must be “beyond science” and therefore supernatural.

The problem:

This is nothing more than a problem of semantics and definitions. Firstly, let me restate the point that, just because science has not yet discovered or understood something, doesn’t mean that it won’t or can’t, and it certainly doesn’t necessarily mean that thing is therefore supernatural. In fact, history demonstrates that most of what we previously thought of as magical or supernatural has become understood in scientific and natural terms. We have no reason to believe that the remaining mysteries of the universe won’t similarly be understood in time.

Morality however is not one of these mysteries at all. Morality is the idea of what we “ought” to do, or how we “ought” to be, which by definition implies that somebody or something has made a decision and has an expectation in this regard. Morality is nothing more than adherence to a particular list of commands issued by very human leaders, churches, cultures, nations, clubs, families, authority figures or some other group or individual. This is easily recognisable in the obvious differences in moral codes and expectations across various religions and cultures. One person thinks God hates alcohol, and another thinks God is indifferent on the matter. Surely he can’t be both?

There are moral principles that are fairly universal, like the idea that it’s bad to steal or lie, but these would certainly pre-date religion and can easily be explained in the context of evolving communities. The individual may feel an urge to lie for their own benefit, but a community quickly attempts to demonise this behaviour because of the negative macro effect on the stability and advancement of the group as a whole. I.e. if everybody lied all the time the community would cease to be functional. In any case, and in every community in existence today, individuals still lie, despite the moral codes they claim to adhere to. This is the constant struggle between the individual’s self-interests and the greater good of the larger community.

We have no reason to believe that morals exist somewhere in space separate from our use of them as a means to describe and categorise. Morals are adjectives rather than nouns. We use them to control how communities behave, and over time we adjust them to suit the changing needs of society. Not too long ago (and even in certain religions today) slavery was considered morally acceptable. Strangely enough God seems to have changed his mind on the matter…

Morality is, in my opinion, more of an argument against the existence of God than for.

In closing:

All of these arguments, and in fact every argument I’ve ever heard for the existence of God, are logically flawed. In contrast, the overwhelming evidence against God is so convincing as to leave me with very little doubt about the matter. Even if a half reasonable argument could be found for the existence of a “Creator”, it would still not make any specific Religion or God or Holy Book any more likely – if anything it would point to a more advanced intelligent life in the universe, one that could be studied and verified and understood in time.

Recent events have had me thinking about the utter meaninglessness of most of our lives.
That may seem a little harsh, but in the face of world hunger, aids, local community murders and unexpected vehicle accidents, the average city dweller’s life seems brutally short, stressed, joyless and insignificant.

I keep asking why? Why do we accept an existence that starts with a caffeine shot, moves onto an hour or two in the traffic, followed by 10 hours of sitting in open plan offices pushing paper around, hidden from the sun, and ending with another two hours in the traffic, a TV dinner, and few hours of restless sleep before it all begins again? Who has convinced us that we need to earn as much money as possible at the cost of family and friends and dreams and health? Why have we accepted, without question, that this system is the only valid option for a life of happiness when it is entirely evident that we are not happy at all?

Sure, we have moments of happiness here and there, and convince ourselves that those moments are what we work so hard for… but I’m not convinced. How many people breaking their backs, working overtime and bringing work home can say that their lives are better for it? When you’ve given up on your dreams, family, friends, hobbies and health, what is life worth? That of course leads us to the question of, “What is the value of life?” or, “what’s it all about?” – An ancient and frustrating question indeed.

As a naturalist who doesn’t believe in any sort of afterlife or spirit world, I do not entertain comforting thoughts of a “better place” to take the edge of our present sufferings. This is it. We only have one go at this. We have to create meaning out of the lottery we were born into or alternatively accept our ultimate fate and get it over and done quickly. I choose the former. Why? Because the joys I have been privileged to experience have been incredible, wonderful, glorious, and I want to have them again, and again, and again.

When I find happiness in this life I am often amazed by how little (cash) it costs. We have been conditioned to accept a system of acquisition and wealth creation and ambition, and yet some of the happiest moments of my life cost me nothing.

I think back to my childhood running free on the streets of Durban. My father had died and my mother had nothing. There were days we lived on toast or Pro-Nutro and yet I was happy. I had no Lego, no Xbox, no cool clothes, and yet I had a gang of friends with whom I spent hours building tree houses and discovering the city with wonder and excitement. We created amazing toys out of scrap wire and other bits and bobs. I learned how to play chess, look after people less fortunate (there’s always someone less fortunate), and create paper Mache superhero masks with which I attempted to help a few willing (but more often flabbergasted) old ladies to cross streets they may or may not have needed to cross.

Most of my life I have managed to escape (or surf) what I call “the tide”. The unstoppable force of societal expectation created through an intricate mix of education, media, religion and hearsay which ultimately creates a definition of what is a “normal”, “good”, “desirable” and “acceptable” life. The tide is so strong it sweeps away even the most determined individualist and results in a population of greedy zombies, all the same, all with lifeless limbs outstretched and crying out for more, all moving in the same direction… all the living dead. When the tide of zombies encounters a living soul in their path they simply devour all the good bits, leaving the remaining deformed corpse to join their ranks in a sort of unholy march toward an unknown destination.

I once met a man who, with his wife and daughter, travelled the world on a bike and side car. He had travelled through Asia for years and was now passing through Africa. They “home” schooled their daughter on the road and stopped for a few weeks in each town where they camped at the local caravan park before moving on. He did odd jobs wherever they stopped to keep them going. He was happy. I remember trying to convince him to settle down. I remember the church trying to make him feel guilty about “dragging” his wife and daughter around the world, and about “not being accountable” to a church or a system. They were immune to the system. They smiled and waved and moved on. They were happy.

If I were to write a list of the 10 happiest moments of my life they would include the births of my kids; some amazing moments of intimacy with friends and lovers; winning certain games of chess or Warhammer; losing certain games of chess or Warhammer; many wonderful moments on the porch with my dogs and lady; special times chilling and camping with my kids; some amazing discussions with friends at Rumble events; meeting new friends at parties and occasions; reading some incredible books; listening at full volume to some incredible music; beating up Horde players on World of Warcraft…

When I start giving up these things to become more zombie-like, I lose the real reason to live. No corporate promotion, car, fancy house, retirement plan or latest gadget upgrade could possibly give my life more meaning or satisfaction than what I can get if I just focus my attention on the stuff that really matters.

Now to go grab a cup of coffee and get those papers pushed!

Sigh… I am conflicted. A part of me wants to scream “what’s wrong with you people!! Can’t you see how stupid this belief is? How limiting? How dangerous?” But another part of me remembers (with a flush of embarrassment and regret) that once I thought the very same thing. I feel like maybe I ought to have some insight into what makes someone hold onto completely irrational beliefs despite all evidence against those beliefs – and yet I feel like my memories of faith are someone else’s, like trying to remember a bad dream from last week. Nevertheless, I’ll give it a try.

What makes someone believe in a talking snake despite the fact that we have no evidence that such a creature ever existed? What makes someone believe in Noah and his flood and his Ark, despite the fact that marsupials ended up all living in Australia? What makes someone believe that God heals people in church services when the only ailments that ever get healed are subjective, and never as convincing as a re-grown limb? What makes people believe in Heaven or Hell when we have no photos of these places and no one has ever returned from there with evidence for a CNN interview?

Firstly it’s important to understand that believers are the product of an intensely complicated and convoluted mass of interwoven stories, ideas, myths, poetry, prophecy, culture and history. It’s kind of like an unfolding family drama. Everyone involved in the drama is intensely committed to the relationships and the conflicts and the emotions that are constantly evolving and becoming more layered and complex. It’s almost impossible as one of the stakeholders to step back and ask the simple questions – as a stranger looking in from the outside might do. Family members will spend hours discussing who said what to who and how they feel about the situation, and never once ask whether the events in question were valid or true in the first place.

This level of complexity allows for innumerable contradictions and logical fallacies to emerge, grow and die within the lifecycle of the drama. Individual points of error may be corrected along the way only for new errors to emerge next door. In our family drama, people will say, “was Susan correct to reprimand Bob about…”, but no one will ask, “Does this family matter? Should we be interfering with each other’s lives at all? What’s the point of all of this? Are we following rules and traditions that make no sense?” i.e. the big questions are never engaged with – in fact the surest route to being cast out of the community is to start engaging with the big questions at all.

How does this play out in Evangelical Christianity? Here are some examples:

People will discuss what makes someone “worthy” of preaching behind the pulpit, and never ask whether preaching behind the pulpit is a valid activity to engage with in the first place.

People will debate whether tithing should be 10% of gross or net income without ever asking whether tithing makes any sense at all.

People will talk at length about whether God is speaking through person X or Y without once questioning whether there exists a God to do any talking to start with.

People will debate the revealed meaning of a single sentence of scripture without ever questioning the validity of the bible as the so called “word of God”.

Elaborate rituals and requirements keep believers feeling that their “knowledge” is meaningful and that some biblical “scholar” has worked out all the details so that the core questions never have to be revisited. Their own scripture even backs up this approach, comparing fundamental questions to milk food and elaborate discussions on dispensational theory, tithing or pre, post and mid tribulation… “meat”.

So why do Christians believe in God despite the fact that children are dying in Africa; or that people are being murdered in their homes; or that limbs never grow back; or that very few of their prayers are ever “answered”… because the thought of a world without God terrifies them. They extrapolate that if the world is this bad with God; imagine how bad it would be without him! They have convinced themselves that God acts in mysterious ways and that somehow contrary to all our faulty human logic that God has a loving plan which we simply can’t understand. They have been led to believe that against a backdrop of pain and suffering life only has meaning if that meaning is serving the being that created them.

With God things become clear. With God they have a mechanism to manage their emotions and fear. They can go to bed calmly at night knowing that an asteroid simply won’t ever wipe out life on the planet because that’s not in God’s plan. They can go to work knowing that they are strong in Jesus (whatever that means) even though they feel fragile and incompetent. In a nutshell, ignorance is bliss.

How many of us haven’t walked into our closet hoping against all hope that we’d find Narnia on the other side; or rubbed an antique lamp in a shop when no one was looking just to test out the genie theory? Why? Because it would be AWESOME if something like that happened! Because it would mean that absolutely nothing was impossible and we could treat those pesky laws of physics with contempt. After all, how many times have you put a glass on a counter only for it to be pulled down to a shattering end onto the floor by the ever present gravity of the earth? Christianity is a Narnia that seems real, or real enough, to its adherents. It’s comforting. It’s calming. It creates a framework for meaningfulness and social acceptance.

But it’s wrong.

I enjoy going on the odd virtual journey to Azeroth, the fantastical world of the online game called World of Warcraft. The difference between religious adherence and online gaming of course is that I don’t actually believe anything I’m seeing, and when I leave the game world I understand that I was never actually there, and that I can’t actually turn into a bear, or fly, or resurrect from the dead – and I don’t tell other people to believe any of it either. I’d hate to see people jumping off buildings to test out their brand new cold weather flying license in real life. The problem with religion is that it does just that. Christians make actual real life decisions based on fantasy logic. They go to war based on these ideals. They prevent Africans with AIDS from using contraceptives. They withhold legitimate scientific information from their children at school about the age of the earth and the origins of life on the planet. They insist that poor people pay a tenth of their incomes to a questionable organization… and the list goes on.

Of course, some Christians are able to leave the fantasy at church on Sunday and live pretty rational, reasonable lives for the rest of the week, not unlike a World of Warcraft player, but that’s not the message being preached from thousands of pulpits every Sunday.

Faith (despite evidence) is a trait that is applauded and recognized as the ideal in most Christian organizations. This one thing alone – faith despite evidence – is the single biggest reason I will continue to speak out against religion. When people believe in invisible things despite the fact that the evidence all but removes the probability of those things existing, we have a breeding ground for quack science, superstition, extremism, conspiracy theories and all sorts of other societal ills.

1. Meaning is a construct.

Life is full of meaning for individuals who create meaning in their life. Wealth, sex, friends, family, social causes, politics etc only have meaning to those who assign meaning to them. For one person ‘saving the Pandas’ is meaningful, to another it’s completely meaningless. For one person ‘family traditions’ are meaningful, to another they’re just meaningless time wasters. One man screams for the Stormers every weekend, another has no clue and doesn’t care. We all try share the ‘meaning’ we get out of things with everyone else but there are people who simply aren’t going to care and we need to get over it. Does that mean that nothing is meaningful? Not at all! Well… maybe to the universe at large, yes, everything is pretty meaningless, but we’d all be suicidal if we didn’t attach meaning to the arbitrary things of our lives. So go ahead and get passionate about things – it’s what makes life worth living. Sex, super heroes, crispy bacon, cigars, whiskey, children, vampires, guitars, costumes and hobbits are just a few things that have tons of meaning to me even if they mean all of nothing to you.

2. Friends are temporary but essential

Friends come and go. We make friends by investing time and effort into the kinds of people that meet a particular need in our lives at a particular time. The reality is that we are always changing ourselves. What we believe or enjoy or desire changes over time and so do our needs. As a result we find new people that are more enjoyable to be around and lose friends with whom we’ve lost what once connected us. Just go to a matric reunion 20 years later and you’ll see what I mean. So I figure we need to enjoy the friends we have now and not cry too much over the one’s we’ve lost.

3. People pick a social reputation

Everyone decides at some point how they want to be seen by the community at large. Some pick the ‘nice guy’ reputation and want to be seen as easy to get along with and lovable. Others pick the ‘fuck you’ reputation and want people to fear them until their trust is earned. Still others want to be seen as ‘crazy’ or ‘quirky’ or ‘mature’ or ‘fearless’ etc. We build and nurture these reputations and get quite offended when people don’t take them at face value. We even assign moral judgments to validate our choices like, “Being cautious and mature is BETTER than being spontaneous and fun loving” or vice versa. I have identified at least three reputations that I have adopted since childhood, and I have a good mind to test drive a few more, just for fun!

4. People are scared

People fear everything. They fear small creatures and large creatures. They fear the unknown. They fear pain, and death, and discomfort. They fear change. They fear confrontation and embarrassment and loss of reputation. There is almost nothing that is not feared by someone; and very few people who are not severely hindered by fear in their lives. I think this is sad. I often just sit and watch people going about their daily lives, and this one thing is clear to me – people would be so much more than they are if they weren’t scared. The problem with fear though is that it’s primal, and so it activates involuntarily as a defense mechanism. Our tools for dealing with fear are courage and rationality, traits that are still hard to find, even in 2011.

5. Life is a journey

There is a common misconception that “people out there” (everyone except yourself) are living “normal lives”; that everyone has a college or university degree; that everyone has medical, house, life and car insurance; that everyone knows what they want to do with their lives; that everyone is married with kids; that everyone goes to gym; that everyone wants an enormous salary; that everyone except you is happy and has what they need! More importantly, there is a perception that this is how it SHOULD be – that this is the definition of life; what it means to be a human. This might be the most deceptive illusion in western society. Of course, this is not how things are at all, and in fact the percentage of people in the world for which the above list is true is almost zero. Very few people know what they want to do with their lives. Very few people are in their career of choice. Very few people stay married for long and most people live in ‘dysfunctional’ families. We’re all so busy trying to be like someone who doesn’t exist, and even if they did we’d probably be uncomfortable in their lives. Every individual has their own peculiar path to walk. Every individual is working out what works for them in their own way. There is no ‘model’ or ‘right’ way to live. I think if we all understood this principle we could get on with ourselves a lot better and just enjoy the journey for what it is.

Thor; Loki; Odin; Zeus; Chronos; Prometheus; Atlas; Diana; Ares; Hades; Hercules; Isis, Osiris: these are all cool Marvel and DC comic superheroes (or villains) with powers that defy the laws of physics. Some fly or move really fast. Some have super strength or amazing combat abilities.

Although I love these comics and the characters I don’t for one minute believe they exist, or ever existed, and nor does anyone else any more… but that wasn’t always the case.

As recently as 300 AD people seriously worshipped Greek or Roman gods in temples and with prayers in the same way millions worship Jesus or Allah today. If you lived in ancient Egypt and did not believe in Ra you would have been seen as a heretic, or crazy – certainly misguided and ignorant. The same would be true for anyone living in Greece in 400 BC and not believing in Zeus etc. And yet, all these “gods”, once revered, and sacrificed to, and worshipped, and died for, have been relegated to cute comic book characters. Anyone today who claimed to still believe in the existence and deity of Hercules would be considered as much a fool as a member of the flat earth society.

How is it then that in the year 2011 billions of people still worship mythical man-made super heroes like Jesus, Krishna or Mohammed? How is it that we believe these beings are real, and all powerful, and control our lives? Is it not evident that they too will become, and are becoming, cute stories that need to be seen for what they really are? Are we supposed to believe that the best evidence the creator of all things could supply for his deity was to walk on water or turn it into wine? Really? That’s it? That makes someone God? Clearly that puts David Copperfield in as a serious contender for creator of the universe!

Already the convoluted Christian story is moving into the realm of comic fiction where it belongs. I’ve just downloaded a comic called Jesus vs. the Vampires, and although I haven’t read it yet I’m sure it’ll be great fun and that Jesus H. Christ will kick a few vampire asses, while walking on water and sipping a good vintage wine, like some sort of robed and bearded demon hunting Van Helsing character. The nativity scene with the wise men and sheep we see all over the place during Christmas is simply the Christian addition to the jumble of kitschy traditions we’ve borrowed from a bunch of ancient cultures we now call heathen.

We need to stand back from our little cultures and families and church communities and see the big picture – Isis, Zeus, Odin and Jesus are simply stories we used to give our lives meaning when we understood nothing about how the universe really worked. Look around you – I mean really look to see: people’s limbs are not growing back; people are not walking on water; gods are not interacting with the general populace. Pretending that it’s true doesn’t make it true. It never has. There never was an Odin. There never was a Hercules. There never was a Jehovah. If there is a God we know nothing at all about it, and it has no interest in our affairs at all, unless that interest is completely academic.

The world will evolve when we understand the difference between fiction and reality and we stop acting on directives issued in works of fiction. We don’t obey the words of Sauron or Gandalf, neither do we plead to Dr. Spock or Wonder Woman to affect our job interview or heal our child of a fever. Instead we prepare for our interview and give our child panado or antibiotics because these things are real and we understand why they work.

Ah, I see my download’s complete. Go Jesus! Do a Chuck Norris on that Vampire ass!! And since when do Vampires sparkle? Your holy shine will put an end to that rubbish! Woohoo, the two finger gesture of God and he turns into ash – yowzers! I hope there’s a Jesus vs. Green Lantern coming soon…

This might be the biggest copout line ever used, right up there with, “It’s not my fault”, and, “It’s not my job”.

It is used by well meaning Christians and Muslims everywhere (yes, everywhere).

When someone says, “Reindeers have horns”, it is not a generalization; it is a fact. Sure, there are exceptions, but if someone were looking for reindeer horns for, I don’t know… reindeer horn soup, they would not be silly or naïve to go looking in a herd of reindeer. And to say that reindeer are generally brown in colour would not be spiciest or derogatory – again, it would simply be a statement of fact. The white reindeers without horns would not define the group; instead they would give cause to consider whether these exceptions are reindeer at all.

When I speak out against the Catholic Church and their many atrocities against mankind I usually get an onslaught of angry individuals who boldly state that I have no right to paint all Catholics, or all Christians with the same brush. Instead of considering the claims against the church, they separate themselves from those claims and pretend that they are entirely innocent of anything they were not directly involved in. Ironically, these same people have no problem feeling proud or taking glory for some distant feeding or philanthropical programme the church is running that they also have no direct involvement with. They claim that their tithes and offerings support the feeding programme, but deny that those same coins support all the evil propagated by the church. These people say things like, “Not all Catholics are bad”, or, “Not all Catholics abuse children”. What do these statements have to do with the moral state of the church? Nothing. Do these statements absolve individual Catholics of their part in the whole thing? Not at all.

Let me break down the fallacy of this type of logic (I have no misconceptions about the uneasy relationship faith has with logic) with a parallel.

Most people agree that the Nazi party was a corrupt, even “evil” institution that did great wrong in the world. Most people also agree that not all Nazi’s were evil. Most Nazi’s were probably just following orders out of fear or some misguided ideology. Did those who were innocent justify the existence of the whole organization? Absolutely not. Most people agree that the Nazi party was too evil to continue existing and had to be shut down. It makes no difference how many “good” Nazi’s there were, the whole thing had to come to end for the good and safety of all mankind. The “good” Nazi’s were the support base of the whole evil organization. Their “good” money was used for evil purposes. Their “good” support politically and numerically gave power to an evil structure. Every one of those “good” Nazi’s is responsible for their own actions and how those actions contributed to one of the darkest times of human history. Many “good” Nazi’s went to church and prayed and claimed to love God, but none of that is a “get-out-of-jail-free card”.

This is true of every sinister group and organisation you can think of from the Mafia, to suicide cults, to… yes, many religious groups! Just because individuals claim to be unknowing, or naïve, or “good” does not take away from what their organisations are doing in the world.

You may be thinking that it is my own logic that is faulty – that if we applied this principle to Atheists, then Atheism is responsible for the atrocities of Stalin or Mao, but this too is flawed. If Atheists all over the world supported these individuals [in the name of Atheism] then I would agree and would certainly NOT continue to consider myself an Atheist; neither would I support Atheism financially or otherwise. But these men did what they did in their own names, or in the name of some broken ideology (forms of communism). Maybe they didn’t believe in God, but that was not their motive or their goal. To say that Mao and Stalin were Atheists is to say they were males, or chess players; all of which may be true but none of which has anything to do with the evil of their organisations. No “good” person could support these organisations with a clear conscience in full knowledge of what was being done by them; and all should agree that they needed to be resisted and ultimately closed down for the good and safety of all humans.

If I was an employee of a large company, and held a good position there, and I discovered that this company financially supported the blood diamond industry in Liberia, or that they were supplying weapons to pirates in Somalia, could I in good conscience continue working for that company? Would I not resign rather than have blood on my hands? Or would I claim ignorance and plead innocence based on the fact that I’m a hard working employee that pays his taxes and goes to church – and furthermore, take offence at the accusations and fight to keep the company open. Maybe, at the very least I would attempt to expose the corruption to see the company continue without those that made the evil decisions. Would it matter that the company also gave a percentage of its earnings to charity? Whichever way you look at it, you could not merrily go to work every day and sleep well at night.

So why is it that the Catholic Church, or Islam, or Protestant churches that do sinister things in the name of Jesus and Christianity, continue to thrive and find support despite all the evil they do? These organisations have the full and knowing support of millions of “good” people. Millions of people turn their eyes from the sins of their churches and selectively dissociate themselves with the dark deeds of their organisations. “Innocent” Catholics, humble family folk, support with weekly attendance, submission and finances the great evils of their church, and take great offence when these dark matters are brought to light. The Pope (their Pope) supports these crimes either directly, or by willingly covering up the actions of his clergy. The WHOLE WORLD knows what the Catholic Church has been up to and STILL people don’t cry out to have the whole thing shut down??

Today in Africa millions of people have contracted AIDS, a death sentence, because the Catholic Church insists that contraception is evil, and “good” Catholics everywhere believe them. This is not the act of one insane Mao, or Stalin, this is the decree of a church that has the support of millions of deceived sheep; all in the name of Jehovah God, the Pope and the Bible.
Thousands of paedophile priests who ought to be in European prisons doing useful community service have simply been relocated to Africa where they have even easier access to all the small boys and girls they could dream of; swept under the rug in the name of the church.
Muslim females today in many Middle East countries are subjected to brutality and inequality comparable to the worst medieval conditions you can imagine; all in the name of Allah, Mohammed and the Kuran.
Lower middle class Protestants in English colonies all over the world are manipulated to give 10% and more of their hard earned cash to Pastors and Reverends and Bishops who drive BMWs and have every need taken care of, while the givers would do better to take care of their personal debt; all in the name of Jesus, scripture and promises of personal financial return.

So, telling me that, “not all Christians are bad”, is completely irrelevant. I have no desire to bring down good Christians or good Muslims, nor do I care how many soup kitchens and feeding programmes you are personally involved in. Feel free to keep feeding the world – we surely need it. What I want to see is the dismantling of religious organisations involved in corrupt, sinister, harmful and evil actions in the world. If that means your particular corrupt organisation needs to be dissolved, it’s really not the end of the world, join something friendlier and less harmful, like the local gaming club

Of course you could always become a Humanist and put your energies and finances to better use without all the holy middlemen.

Can Atheists be moral?

This has been a topic of great debate in my online interactions with Theists. Religion, and particularly Christianity has always presented itself as the guardian of morality in the world – more and more as they find themselves having to relinquish (to science) their claim of ‘guardian of the mysteries of how the universe works’. Morality is one of the only things they have left to feel authorative about. But was morality ever their domain to begin with, and do they really have any authority in this area at all? As I’m sure you’ve already guessed my answers are no, and no.

Morality is the understanding that something is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, often replaced with ‘good’ or ‘evil’.

Let’s start with Christian claims to moral authority in the world. I will concede that if there really was a God who made everything, and he/it (could God really have gender) happens to be the God of the Jews and Christians, and that Jesus really is his son, and that the bible really is the inspired word of God, perfect in all its apparent contradictions… then sure, Christians would have authority in the area of morality.

Basically, the very definition of what is moral or not would be dictated by whatever set of rules the Christians (directed by God) wrote down, or preached, or declared to be true. If God says, “Kill your son”, then killing him is not immoral, as demonstrated by Abraham and others in the Bible. If God is real, as many believe he is, then morality (what is good or evil) is by necessity wrapped up in obedience to him/it. The fact that most Christians believe that the 10 commandments of Moses and the two commandments of Jesus (Love the Lord your God, and love thy neighbor) are the ultimate moral compass, demonstrates this point. Consider the first five commandments:

1. Do not have other Gods before me
2. Don’t worship idols
3. Don’t misuse the name of God
4. Keep the Sabbath day Holy (by not working)
5. Honour your father and mother.

Are these really moral issues? I guess I could make a case for honouring your father and mother, but the rest are clearly the commands of a jealous God. Billions of Hindus, Muslims and Bhuddists are immoral based on the first four commandments. That’s convenient if you’re a Christian. Nevertheless, my point is that if God is real then this IS morality and most of us are screwed.

The same could be said of any of the Deities people subscribe to. If the Muslims are right and Allah exists, then Christians are immoral by the same principle; and in this world view Atheists are going to be immoral no matter what… which is pretty much how almost all Theists see us. Of course, that argument alone could convince me of the improbability of any of our gods being real, but that’s another topic and I won’t even start on HOW people decide what it is that God wants…

I don’t believe for one minute that any of these gods are real, and so I have to relook at the definition of morality from a human perspective. Do people that don’t ascribe morality to God have any moral code at all? What is morality if it’s not doing what God tells you to do? People have pondered this question since the dawn of thinking man. There are many theories around morality. Some think it’s about the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Others link it to the pursuit of personal happiness. Others reject morality entirely and do whatever the hell comes to mind. Others see it as a social or societal construct, not dissimilar to law. The reality is that all of these views on morality – theistic, humanistic, fatalistic, anarchist etc. are all at play in the same world at the same time. So how do we sift through the jumble to determine what the best way forward is?

My personal approach is to consider the groups/societies where the greatest personal freedom, happiness and contentment for the greatest number of people, and where the lowest human suffering, enslavement and deception is being demonstrated. I find that the more pedantic and specific the moral code is the more it suits a smaller number of people at the expense of a larger number of “outsiders”. At the same time, to have no moral obligations at all results in anarchy, leaving almost nobody satisfied.

So somewhere there is a “sweet spot” on the scale that people will buy into for the maximum benefit to themselves and the greatest number of others. My casual observations (i.e. I haven’t done the polls and analysis) tells me that there are non theistic communities like Sweden and France where a great number of people within those borders enjoy great personal freedoms and minimal human suffering, and not because they think they’re “obeying God”, but because the general population has bought into some generally agreed moral principles.

In societies like this morality is not determined by sexual preference, smoking habits, how much alchahol someone drinks or what words people use to curse with. These are personal preferences that have no bearing on morality. Instead morality in these societies is based on principles like honesty, ethical business dealings, rejection of corruption, kindness, obeying the law (because the laws don’t produce misery) etc. Contrary to the opinion of many Christians, this is not a system where people just “do what they want”, but rather people consider their part in the larger scheme of things and make small adjustments and sacrifices as required for the greater good, without completely compromising their own happiness. Ultimately everyone understands that their personal happiness is linked to the happiness of others so an ‘economy’ develops that morphs and adjusts as required for the greatest happiness and the least suffering.

In this light “Thou shalt not kill” and “Thou shalt not steal” are logical moral imperatives that protect the greater happiness, and certainly don’t need to be issued by God. Evolution is doing just fine on its own. As a result slavery has been pushed out by the moral economy in most communities, as well as apartheid and misogyny, no thanks to the Holy Scriptures of most religions which at best permit these social evils and at worst promote them.

My conclusion is that Religion has very little to offer in the realm of morality and has often been an amoral force in the world. Morality is not about belief or disbelief – it’s about humans working out how to live together in a way that reduces suffering in the world. Can Atheists be moral? I think they have less superstitious complications to deal with than the average Theist and should therefore be in a position to live a good and moral life, the kind of morality that actually matters in a real world.

ARE Atheists moral? Well that’s a completely different question!

Recently I’ve had a few conversations with Theists who were merrily engaging in reasonably logical conversation until they hit the road block of, “Well that’s not a very nice world to live in – how could you possibly believe that?!”

Uh… come again? The basic argument here is that if scientific evidence gives them the sense that the world might not be a fun and safe place to live then there must be something wrong with the science. Another example of the theistic tendency to create a fantastical image of reality and then modify the “evidence” to fit the picture.

Classic examples of where this argument crops up are:

1. The discussion around what happens when we die. I.e. that there is no evidence to suggest that anything happens when we die, except that our bodies break down into basic mineral components and our consciousness, residing in our brains, ceases to exist.

2. The discussion around free will. I.e. that there is a lot in evolution, chemistry, physics and even the softer science of psychology to suggest that everything that happens is caused by something else… or maybe everything else when it comes down to it. This of course sheds a whole new light on whether there can be anything like free will at all. I admit that much discussion around this topic is theoretical at best, but it’s interesting nevertheless.

3. The humorous idea that if heaven and hell actually did exist, and it actually was the Christian Heaven and Hell, and we actually did go to one of them when we died based on… well, who the hell knows… but if it was all true, then most atheists might chose Hell over Heaven based on things like: who else was there and; what music they played there.

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not some unemotional, unattached geek-robo-psychopath who would not like to live forever or have free will; and I certainly wouldn’t enjoy the idea of a real Hell either.

But that’s not the point is it?

It’s like being diagnosed with a disease that could be controlled and managed but instead, denying the diagnosis altogether, because it’s not great news, and carrying on with life as normal. Rejecting the medication and living in denial. I suppose it’s a way to live. Just pretend everything is as you want it to be and Hey Presto! You’re a happy chappy! This is very much the modus operandi for evangelicals, “Name it and claim it!” “All things are possible…” “Let go, let God”. When good things happen, praise God – when bad things happen, God’s ways are mysterious. Whatever happens, it’s never what you think it is, and it’s never logical. If I save a woman from an oncoming train she might praise God, as though I had nothing to do with it. Logical? If thousands die in Haiti, we should praise God for the little girl who “miraculously” survives in a fridge or something… so where’s the miracle for the thousands of dead people?

For me, grappling with reality is a far happier and more fulfilling way to live. For one, there is so much to learn and discover, and as long as you’re not shutting your eyes and ears to everything you don’t like, the pieces start to fall together, and the universe becomes even more awesome than you ever imagined. When I consider that it’s all over when it’s over, I realize just how precious this life is and I live it with more vigor and curiosity than ever before. I think it would be cool if we really had free will, and I hope we do, but I’m working with the evidence I have access to. I do have a few theories about the evolution of free will from present natural laws, but that’s a work in progress.

The bottom line is that I would have never start asking the questions if I had simply accepted the going Christian doctrine – but then again, maybe ignorance is bliss.

My response to the article:

Do faith in God and science contradict?

From: http://www.gotquestions.org/science-God.html

Here’s the article:

Question: “Do faith in God and science contradict?”

Answer: Science is defined as “the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.” Science is a method that mankind can use to gain a greater understanding of the natural universe. It is a search for knowledge through observation. Advances in science demonstrate the reach of human logic and imagination. However, a Christian’s belief in science should never be like our belief in God. A Christian can have faith in God and respect for science, as long as we remember which is perfect and which is not.

Our belief in God is a belief of faith. We have faith in His Son for salvation, faith in His Word for instruction, and faith in His Holy Spirit for guidance. Our faith in God should be absolute, since when we put our faith in God, we depend on a perfect, omnipotent, omniscient Creator. Our belief in science should be intellectual and nothing more. We can count on science to do many great things, but we can also count on science to make mistakes. If we put faith in science, we depend on imperfect, sinful, limited, mortal men. Science throughout history has been wrong about many things, such as the shape of the earth, powered flight, vaccines, blood transfusions, and even reproduction. God is never wrong.

Truth is nothing to fear, so there is no reason for a Christian to fear good science. Learning more about the way God constructed our universe helps all of mankind appreciate the wonder of creation. Expanding our knowledge helps us to combat disease, ignorance, and misunderstanding. However, there is danger when scientists hold their faith in human logic above faith in our Creator. These persons are no different from anyone devoted to a religion; they have chosen faith in man and will find facts to defend that faith.

Still, the most rational scientists, even those who refuse to believe in God, admit to a lack of completeness in our understanding of the universe. They will admit that neither God nor the Bible can be proved or disproved by science, just as many of their favorite theories ultimately cannot be proved or disproved. Science is meant to be a truly neutral discipline, seeking only the truth, not furtherance of an agenda.

Much of science supports the existence and work of God. Psalm 19:1 says, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands.” As modern science discovers more about the universe, we find more evidence of creation. The amazing complexity and replication of DNA, the intricate and interlocking laws of physics, and the absolute harmony of conditions and chemistry here on earth all serve to support the message of the Bible. A Christian should embrace science that seeks the truth, but reject the “priests of science” who put human knowledge above God.

My response in red:

Answer: Science is defined as “the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.” Science is a method that mankind can use to gain a greater understanding of the natural universe. (the best method we have by far).

It is a search for knowledge through observation (controlled testing, experimentation and sound reason). Advances in science demonstrate the reach of human logic and imagination. However, a Christian’s belief in science should never be like our belief in God. A Christian can have faith in God and respect for science, as long as we remember which is perfect and which is not. (Huh? What does that even mean? How do you just pronounce something perfect?)

Our belief in God is a belief of faith. (Therein lies the problem!) We have faith in His Son for salvation (from what?), faith in His Word for instruction (have you read this “word” recently? Full of contradictions and immoral teachings), and faith in His Holy Spirit for guidance (How does something that can’t be seen, heard or observed in any way, guide people?). Our faith in God should be absolute (why?), since when we put our faith in God, we depend on a perfect, omnipotent, omniscient Creator (huh? Says who? Where do these ‘facts’ come from, and why aren’t they plain to science and reason, let alone all contrary religions?). Our belief in science (we don’t ‘believe’ in science. It’s a method of inquiry) should be intellectual and nothing more (that’s exactly right). We can count on science to do many great things (yip), but we can also count on science to make mistakes (yip. And?). If we put faith in science (we don’t!), we depend on imperfect, sinful, limited, mortal men (uh, yes, that’s why we don’t put ‘faith’ in science…). Science (you mean scientists) throughout history has been wrong about many things, such as the shape of the earth, powered flight, vaccines, blood transfusions, and even reproduction (who said they weren’t?). God is never wrong. (Jeez! SAYS WHO? Have you read the Bible lately?)

Truth is nothing to fear (could have fooled me), so there is no reason for a Christian to fear good science (Christians have good reasons to fear good science). Learning more about the way God constructed our universe (Science demonstrates clearly that there is probably no creator God) helps all of mankind appreciate the wonder of creation (uh… nope). Expanding our knowledge helps us to combat disease, ignorance, and misunderstanding (Yes! Yes! Yes!!!). However, there is danger when scientists hold their faith in human logic above faith in our Creator (Oh enough already! Scientists don’t do faith, and there is no creator!). These persons are no different from anyone devoted to a religion; they have chosen faith in man and will find facts to defend that faith (sigh… this is hopeless).

Still, the most rational scientists, even those who refuse to believe in God, admit to a lack of completeness in our understanding of the universe (damn right, but a knowledge that surpasses the church’s by a million fold, and growing). They will admit that neither God nor the Bible can be proved or disproved by science (Nor can the tooth fairy, Easter bunny or flying spaghetti monster… because its bull shit!), just as many of their favourite theories ultimately cannot be proved or disproved (They’re called theories for a reason). Science is meant to be a truly neutral discipline, seeking only the truth, not furtherance of an agenda (yes. And?)

Much of science supports the existence and work of God (What?! How? Where? Since when?). Psalm 19:1 says (and this matters because?), “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands.” As modern science discovers more about the universe, we find more evidence of creation (exactly the opposite is true). The amazing complexity and replication of DNA, the intricate and interlocking laws of physics, and the absolute harmony of conditions and chemistry here on earth all serve to support the message of the Bible (Message of the Bible? Which particular message is that? How do we even begin to draw that conclusion?). A Christian should embrace science that seeks the truth (correct), but reject the “priests of science” (hahaha. Really?) who put human knowledge above God (Which God is that?)

There is a branch of fence sitters, ‘Agnostics’ if you will, that insist that there is no argument or antagonism between Science and Religion, or that there need not be, because somehow they’re both doing the same thing in different ways. These people insist that scientists ought not to overlook or belittle the efforts of the religious in their journey to discover the mysteries of God; while the religious need to recognise the achievements and potential of science.

As always, this sort of “let’s all get along” speak, sounds good at first glance – after all, wouldn’t the world be a better place if we all just accepted our differences and strove toward peace? I believe it is disingenuous, and at the very least naive for an intelligent person to think this way. Science is a method of discovery that goes against the very fabric of religious thought – in fact religion sees scientific enquiry as a dangerous threat and would surely disintegrate if all its adherents started to think scientifically and rationally. Religion requires an unquestioning attitude regarding certain key doctrines or it becomes meaningless. Religion can be nothing but fearful and resistant to science if it is to remain what it is. Similarly science is a method of discovery that, to be called science, must adhere to a strict process of self criticism, testing and experimentation, none of which religion does or could subject itself to. Science seeks to build on previous knowledge through actively looking at all empirical evidence and doing its best to disprove its own theories.

How can religion get along with Science? That would mean having to admit that the evidence is overwhelmingly stacked up against that particular religious mythology. That would logically mean that all religious myths are just that, myths, and not reality to base our lives on. Of course, for the religious, logic has nothing to do with it. The religious play the ‘Faith’ card. “I don’t need evidence… I have Faith.” But even that argument is disingenuous. You may have faith in deity X and myth Y, but someone else has faith in deity A and myth B. So what external device do you have of working out which myths are more likely to be real, if any at all? Some seem to think that all or none are ‘real’ in scientific terms and that’s OK. Why? Why is that OK? These same people certainly don’t use this crazy logic to run any of their other affairs.

Let’s make it very clear why science and religion can never ‘get along’ intellectually:

1. Science requires evidence to determine a truth value. Religion claims complete knowledge of a particular truth despite all evidence to the contrary.

2. Science has an internal self criticism control through peer review, experimentation, publication and questioning. Religion cannot tolerate criticism and has invented words like ‘blasphemy’ to keep people submissive and humble.

3. Science rewards those who convincingly disprove established knowledge. Religion rejects and disciplines those who question its doctrines.

4. No questions are taboo in science. All questions are encouraged. Religions ask no questions, and certainly don’t encourage them. Religions simply hand out pre-packaged answers.

5. Science is always looking to improve our understanding of the truth, with the understanding that we may never know everything but we’ll certainly keep searching. Religion claims to have access to the ultimate truth despite the fact that most of what they know cannot be verified in any reliable way.

6. Science produces the goods. Science changes the world daily and every religious person depends on the products of scientific enquiry. Religion claims to offer the world only those things which humans can provide each other without the myths anyway. Community. Morality. Philanthropy. No Gods are required for these.

It is important to understand that Science doesn’t say, “There is no God”. Science says, “If there is a God then let’s all see him. If there is a God then let’s answer the following questions. If there is a God then let’s test what we think we know and asses the results.” Religion says, “There is a God and that’s that. Accept it and believe it and live as if it’s true and don’t worry if it doesn’t make sense.” Of course the danger of that type of thinking is that if the particular God demands death or sacrifice or suicide bombings then we’re all screwed, and we have been, for thousands of years!

The Agnostic folk of which I spoke at the beginning of this article tell me that Science doesn’t know everything. That there are mysteries in the universe we may never uncover. My response is YES, and…? There are thousands of gaps in the scientific understanding of the cosmos, and this might always be true. So we’ll keep searching for the answers and improving our knowledge. What purpose does it serve to fill all the gaps with God, only to remove him from the gap when we understand the reality? A mystery is simply a presently unexplained phenomenon, not a reason to believe in God. Science is quite happy with mysteries, it gives us an opportunity to ask questions and make discoveries. Religion provides me no intellectual comfort in the spaces of the unknown.

While the majority of the world’s population are steeped in religious and magical thinking; while we teach biblical creationism in schools as a valid history of our planet; while we have prayer meetings for flood victims instead of rebuilding cities; while we believe that plastic wrist bands with magnets can keep us healthy; while we believe that faith is a valid substitute for vaccinations in infants; while we believe that stem cell research is ‘of the Devil’; while we believe that Harry Potter is turning our children into suicidal witches… we will never be free as a species to see the universe for what it really is and evolve into the magnificent creatures we could become.