|
and THEIR REFUTATION1 To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure;
to explain the known by the unknown is a form of lunacy.
To begin, let us establish a definition for atheism because it is so poorly understood generally. Atheism is simply the absence of a belief, belief in a god, a higher power, a supreme being, etc. It is a state of mind in which the supernatural plays no part. For that reason atheism has no agenda, pursues no goals, and practices no principles. Although the atheist may deny the validity of any one or all of the theistic arguments, he or she does not deny the existence of a god. The existence of such a being remains unproved. Let it be understood that the atheist does not close the door on the possibility that a god exists. Realizing that the failure of theistic arguments does not absolutely prove that there is no god, and that supposing as much would make one guilty of the fallacy of arguing from ignorance, the atheist remains open to further evidence. Until such proof is forthcoming, however, the atheist remains justified in rejecting theism as a valid concept. What would it take to convince an atheist that a god exists? This is a fair question. First, an atheist would accept the data of sense perception, known as empirical evidence, provided these data were objectively substantiated and could be experienced by another individual under similar circumstances. Second, an atheist would accept compelling argumentation that is logical and consistent, does not contradict either itself or our current knowledge of the universe, and, where appropriate, can withstand the cutting edge of Occam's Razor2 Before discussing specific arguments, some conditions of proof must be met. First, arguments for the existence of god cannot contain theistic presuppositions. In other words, the theist must not assume as true that which has not yet been shown to be true. This fallacy, known as "question begging,” is often encountered when dealing with the philosophically untrained. Second, the existence or nonexistence of god must be decided solely from evidence and logic; there is no room for the ad hominem appeal. It makes no sense to accept the idea first and then search for evidence to support it. This is rationalization, not rationality. In logic it is known as special pleading. Third, both parties must practice intellectual honesty. If in rebuttal the atheist conclusively proves the pro-god arguments to be invalid, the theist must be willing to acknowledge it and vice versa. The purpose of this paper is to present in summary the principle arguments for the existence of God followed by their refutation. God is herein identified as Yahweh (Jehovah) of the Hebrews, the God of the Bible. In that regard, it should be acknowledged that in the Bible the existence of other gods is freely acknowledged. The first of the Ten Commandments reads, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” (Ex. 20:3). The gods Baal, Ashtoreth, and Chemosh are frequently mentioned throughout the Pentateuch3 and, in some cases, even worshiped. Now, let us ask a simple question: "Has anyone ever seen God?" In John 1:18 we are told, “No one has ever seen God.” However, in John 6:46 we learn that there’s an exception. Here it says, “No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God.” In 1st John 4:12 it says again, “No one has ever seen God.” The writer of 1st Timothy 1:17 tells us that God is invisible. In Exodus 33:20 God warns Moses, “. . . no one can see my face and live.” Then God proceeds to contradict himself. According to Genesis 16:13 God appeared to Hagar, and she admits to having seen him. In Genesis 26:24 we learn that God appeared to Isaac yet he did not die. In Genesis 32:30 Jacob gets the best of God in an all night wrestling match after which he brags that he saw God face to face and lived. But to compound the confusion, in Exodus 24:9-11 we learn that Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu and the seventy elders of Israel not only saw God, they had a banquet with him. Confusing, isn't it? Now let us consider the arguments for the existence of God and their refutation.
1. The Argument from Universal Experience ASSERTION: Theists often claim that the existence of god is confirmed by common sense and common experience. In support of this assertion, they contend that every race and every culture that we know of has shown an inclination toward a belief in god. This may also be called the "God exists because everybody says so" argument. REFUTATION: The argument fails because it contradicts empirical knowledge. Anthropologists have found that belief in a god is not a universal phenomenon. It should also be pointed out that Buddhism, one of the worlds major religions, operates from a non-theistic base.
2. The Ontological Argument ASSERTION: God, by definition, is perfect. In order for anything to be perfect it must exist. Therefore, god exists. REFUTATION: Certain attributes of god's perfection are not consistent. For example, god is said to be both perfectly just and perfectly merciful. However, perfect justice and perfect mercy do not always coincide: a perfectly merciful god would forgive us our sins; a perfectly just god would punish us for our sins. Another difficulty with this argument is the implication that perfection is an objective term. If this were the case, we would all agree on what is perfect. Perfection is a subjective term and does not belong in the search for objective knowledge. The ontological argument fails due to the difficulties inherent with the definition of god.
3. The Moral Argument ASSERTION: Humans have moral values that cannot be explained in terms of the physical world. These values must have a source, and that source can be none other than god. REFUTATION: Some moral precepts such as those which forbid killing and stealing are indeed universal. But are these precepts as absolute as they appear? Exceptions to the ban on killing include self defense, war, and capital punishment. In regard to stealing, god himself openly encouraged it in Exodus 3:22. In 1st Kings 22:21-23 god cooperates in a devious plot against Ahab, King of Israel. The plot is based on an outright lie. Anthropologists have found that different cultures deal with moral questions in many different ways. This serves to show that morality is neither objective nor absolute; it is subjective and conditional. The truth is that good and evil exist independently not only of human opinion but also of god's will. Suppose, for example, god commanded that lying, stealing, and murder were now our moral duty. Does anyone seriously believe that these actions would somehow become morally acceptable in the eyes of most humans? If god did command such a thing, it would not make them good. Therefore, what is judged to be good or evil does not depend on what god commands. These absolutes derive directly from the human condition. They would exist much as they do today if god had never been heard of. Viewing morality as the natural outgrowth of the human survival instinct, it is no longer necessary to posit god as an explanation. The moral argument fails because of internal difficulties and its inability to withstand the cutting edge of Occam's Razor.
4. The Cosmological Arguments Cosmology is that branch of philosophy dealing with the origin and structure of the universe. Three cosmological arguments are commonly relied on by theists to verify the existence of god: the first-cause argument, the contingency argument, and the entropy argument. Let us consider them in that order. The Argument for First Cause: ASSERTION: Originated by the 13th century Christian theologian, Thomas Aquinas, the contention of this argument is that everything has a cause, and every cause must have been caused by a prior cause therefore if we regress backward in time through an unbroken chain of causation we will eventually arrive it the original or first cause and that will be God who does not require an explanation thus proving that he exists. REFUTATION: First, by exempting God this argument is rendered self-contradictory because everything does not have a cause. So, if the premise is true, the conclusion cannot be true, and if the conclusion is true, the premise cannot be true. However, the major fallacy of the first cause argument is its assumption that the universe requires a causal explanation. In that regard, it must be pointed out that by definition the universe is the totality of all that exists. Therefore, one cannot go outside existence in search of a cause for existence simply because there isn't anywhere to go. The argument from first cause fails because it is self contradictory and complex beyond necessity. The Contingency Argument ASSERTION: The universe is composed of an aggregate of individual objects and/or beings none of which contain the reason for their existence within themselves alone. Since these objects exist there must be an external reason for their existence because without it they could not exist. Therefore there must exist a being which contains within itself the reason for its own existence. This being is god. REFUTATION: The contingency argument is among the most confusing and irrational of the alleged proofs for god. More than any other, it explicitly attacks the primacy of existence, and this opens the door for epistemological chaos. The Entropy4 Argument ASSERTION: Since the latter part of the nineteenth century, some theologians have used the entropy concept coupled with the Second Law of Thermodynamics5 as a kind of modern cosmological argument for the existence of god. The idea is that in any closed system there is a direct relationship between the movement of molecules, the smallest physical unit of a compound, and heat. The greater the heat; the greater the movement. Entropy increases as heat decreases. Without the infusion of new energy, impossible in a truly closed system, entropy increases until the system reaches a state of equilibrium in molecular movement and, thus, in temperature. Since, according to this view, the universe is a closed system in which entropy is steadily increasing, it is running down like a giant clock. If the universe is indeed running down, sometime in the past it had to have been "wound up." This proves the existence of god because who else could have originally wound up the universe? REFUTATION: If the Second Law of Thermodynamics applies without exception, as the supporters of the entropy argument say, how can they then turn around and claim god as an exception? At best, the entropy argument is capable only of demonstrating the existence of some primitive energy source. To declare this source to be god is pure speculation backed up by no empirical evidence. Also, the earth is not a closed system thereby eliminating one of the prime prerequisites for the application of this law. To posit god as the creator of the universe is simply to try to solve one mystery with an even greater mystery. As new data are accumulated and analyzed gaps in knowledge are filled thereby eliminating the need for a god to supply the answer. Although cloaked in scientific jargon, the entropy argument fails simply because it is an invalid argument.
5. The Teleological Argument Like the cosmological argument the teleological argument is presented in one of three slightly different variations, the argument from design, the analogical argument, and the argument from life. Let us begin with the argument from design. The Argument from Design ASSERTION: The argument from design, the most popular of the three teleological arguments, contends that the orderliness of the universe implies an intelligent designer, and that designer is god. REFUTATION: The theist usually begins his or her argument by citing examples of human-designed objects such as buildings, airplanes, automobiles, watches, etc. However, the question is, "Just how do we recognize design?" The answer is that the criterion for identifying design comes down to determining whether or not the object under consideration differs from naturally occurring objects such as oak trees, rocks, clouds, etc. This is the only way to recognized design. Everyone knows that an automobile is the product of a designer. Such a wondrous artifact did not hatch from an egg or sprout from a seed. Then one thinks of a god and, in effect, reasons that such a wondrous thing didn't have to have a designer. Herein lies a problem. God, like the automobile, did not hatch from an egg or sprout from a seed. So far as we know, God is not a natural object and, therefore, must have had a designer. To reason from design leads to an infinite regression in which each designer requires an even more elaborate designer ad infinitum. Perhaps this seems more reasonable under a polytheistic system, but it runs counter to a monotheistic philosophy such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Essential to recognizing design is identifying a purpose. However, a purpose can only be determined by first knowing the intentions of the designer. For that reason we must first know God's intentions before we can detect his purpose. And before we can know God's intentions we must first prove that he exists. Here is precisely where the argument from design breaks down. In order to posit a designer God the theist must begin by assuming as true the very thing in question, the existence of God. In logic this is known as "begging the question." A variation of the design argument, and one often used against evolution, is the assertion that complex natural objects, such as the eye or the brain, cannot simply be the result of mere chance. These objects must have come from a master designer. That designer, according to the theist, can only be God. The explanation is that, when blind chance operates, there are billions of different possible combinations of atoms that could come into being. Since chance is blind and no more likely to result in one combination than another, all possible combinations have an equal probability of occurring. The combination which would compose an eye is only one out of many billions of possible combinations; the odds against its occurrence are billions to one. According to the theist, if out of all those billions this one occurs, then it must have been the result of divine interference. The problem is this: if the combination of atoms composing the eye is only one out of billions of possible combinations, then so is every other possible combination. Take whatever combination you wish, there are always billions of others that could have happened. Thus, if the chances are billions to one against the eye combination, then the same probability would hold for any other combination. And yet, even in a random shuffling of atoms, one combination would occur despite the odds against it. When it did occur, it would be just as improbable as the eye. Why, then, consider the existence of the eye as a planned event just because it is statistically improbable? The fact is that for some reason we have a tendency to consider a meaningful combination of anything as less likely to occur than a meaningless one. That is just not true. Chance is blind and does not favor one possible combination over another, as does planning. With chance as the operative feature, all possible combinations are equally likely. But with the planning operative, one result becomes more likely than any of the others simply because it is the favored result. The most devastating rebuttal of the design argument is the theory of evolution. How, for example, can we speak of present conditions as designed when these conditions differ, sometimes radically, from those of the distant past and are in constant transition? Such a condition would imply that the designer is always at work adjusting or fine tuning his creations which were faulty to begin with. Mutation and natural selection, the twin driving forces of evolution, operate naturally in response to outside stimulation. Mutation, a random process of genetic alteration, provides the raw material upon which natural selection, a nonrandom process, operates over time so as to insure the organism’s survival in an ever changing environment. The argument from design fails because of the problem of infinite regress, and the contradiction of current scientific knowledge. Perhaps a more relevant reason for its failure is the fact that it begs the question. The argument from design of necessity must assume the very thing it is trying to prove - - the existence of a god. For further refutation of this theistic premise see, "The Argument From Design" on this web site. The Analogical Argument ASSERTION: The analogical argument consists of drawing an analogy between natural objects and manmade artifacts. According to the theist, both display the intricate adjustment of various parts. Since the blind force of nature cannot alone explain such wonders, we are justified in supposing that the natural objects, like the man-made artifacts, are the product of a grand designer. That designer, of course, is god. REFUTATION: There is natural order in the universe and the theist fails to recognize that he or she is confusing this natural order with design. Artifacts such as automobiles buildings, and watches show all of the characteristics of being manmade. These characteristics distinguish them from natural objects such as trees, rocks, and humans. To conclude therefore that the universe was designed, the theist must first establish that it was manufactured. It is here that the defenders of the analogical argument, and design arguments generally, face a most serious problem. The theist must first demonstrate the existence of an intelligent designer, and then - and only then - can he assert with confidence that the universe is the product of a designer. In other words, one must first know that a god exists before one can say with any degrees of certainty that he/she/it created anything. The analogical argument fails because it begs the question by asserting as true that which has not yet been proven to actually be true. The Argument from Life ASSERTION: The probability that the right combination of atoms needed to form even the simplest of living organisms will occur by chance is about as feasible as an explosion in a paint factory creating the Encyclopedia Britannica. Therefore, life had to be the result of intelligent design. REFUTATION: Life is a natural phenomenon, the product of natural forces. Although these forces are not yet fully understood, there is no reason to posit a god as the source of life particularly since it is pure speculation. Here we have another example of answering one mystery with an even greater mystery.
6. The Argument from Metaphysics ASSERTION: God is so vastly transcendent that any finite familiar entity that predicates taken from ordinary experiences such as anthropomorphism cannot be used in their literal senses when applied to god. (Paul Tillich, 1886-1965) REFUTATION: The metaphysical argument fails because it is unintelligible.
7. The Argument from Personal Experience ASSERTION: The existence of god is affirmed through a personal revelation or experience. REFUTATION: Numerous individuals throughout the ages have claimed to have seen, heard or otherwise experienced god personally. If we were to assume that such experiences are indeed genuine, and not the result of some type of mental illness, we still run into serious difficulties. Was it the same god who allegedly talked to the ancient Hebrew prophets, spoke from the heavens to Jesus, revealed the Koran to Mohammed, and directed Joseph Smith to the tablets of the Book of Mormon? When nations go to war, devout believers on both sides have been known to receive revelations assuring them that god was on their side. Three possibilities exist here neither of which is friendly to theism. They are: 1) god is a malicious fiend who enjoys inspiring contradictory doctrines and provoking war; 2) These visionaries were only hallucinating, or 3) They are perpetrating a deliberate hoax. With no reliable methods of testing, claims of godly communications cannot be accepted as valid. The argument from personal experience fails due to contradictory accounts and an inability to supply empirical verification.
8. The Argument from Near-Death Experience ASSERTION: The existence of god has been posited based on the reports of people who perceived themselves to have been near death for a short time during which they claimed to have been transported to heaven via a bright light at the end of a tunnel where they met and communicated with Jesus, their dead grandma, a long dead friend etc. This experience affirms the godly claim of life after death. REFUTATION: First, it should be noted that there have never been any reports of anyone having seen God when in this alleged state of suspended animation. Also, there are on record many cases of near-death experiences which have run counter to the so-called heavenly revelation. When these people regain consciousness they report having had no such celestial experience. Therefore, it is far from universal. Adding further complications, the near-death experiences is always consistent with the subject's belief systems --Catholics see saints, Muslims see Mohammed, and Protestants see Jesus. This points more to some type of psychological phenomenon rather than actual objective experiences. Any starving of the brain of oxygen and glucose, while allowing carbon dioxide to build up, will produce hallucinations. This argument fails due to conflicting testimony plus the fact that these "visions" are highly hallucinatory in nature and cannot be empirically verified.
9. The Argument from History (God is Historically Verifiable) ASSERTION: As history, the Bible is reliable in every detail, and thus the resurrection of Jesus proves that god exists. REFUTATION: This argument is mainly employed by fundamentalist Christians, who have demonstrated themselves to be biased and generally inept in matters of scholarship. The historical argument fails because of its inability to be verified empirically, and because it runs counter to the current understanding of history and of biblical scholarship.
10. The Argument from Miracles ASSERTION: Since certain events seem unexplainable in ordinary terms, they must be miracles6. Miracles by definition can only be explained in terms of some supernatural power. The most plausible supernatural explanation of miracles is simply that god caused them to occur. Hence god exists. REFUTATION: In this argument god's existence is inferred indirectly from the presence of perceived miracles. It is here that the atheistic theory identifying human beings as the cause of miracles demonstrates its superiority over the theistic theory. Human minds are known to exist, but the existence of god's mind is in dispute. It is more reasonable to assume that when a miraculous-seeming event occurs, it does so not because of god's help but because the person or people involved either did it or imagined it. Such phenomena are known to occur quite commonly as the result of individual or mass hysteria. The intense desire for a miracle can help to produce what in the eye of the beholder(s) appears to be one. In both theories, the direct action of a mind on matter is claimed. It should be noted however that whatever weakness or strong point one theory has the other will also have. But in the theistic theory a further claim is made that a miracle-working god exists. It is this claim that renders the theistic theory less adequate than that of the atheist. The fact is that miracles do not occur. If they did the very basis of the historical and scientific methods would be violated. In order for history and science to have any credibility they must follow the assumption that natural law is regular and inviolable over time. There is a natural explanation for everything that happens. Therefore, miracles cannot be used to prove the existence of god.
11. The Argument from Genetics ASSERTION: Belief in god is so universal that it must be innate. The only way to account for this is to assume that when god created humans he deliberately instilled in them a believe-in-god instinct. This instinct proves that god exists. REFUTATION: To be innate a belief must either be present at birth or acquired without instructions. The new born baby is an atheist. There is no evidence that it instinctively believes in the existence of a god. When the baby reaches the age of understanding it is indoctrinated into the religion of its culture, Christian, Jewish, Moslem, Buddhism, etc. Therefore, a belief in a god is the result of culture, not genetics.
12. The Argument from Reward ASSERTION: People who believe in god live fuller, happier lives than do those who do not. This better life can only be explained as a reward from god for being faithful. REFUTATION: As a general principle this argument cannot be defended because many nonbelievers live happy, well adjusted, and successful lives while believers sometime live lives of misery and unhappiness. However, the biggest problem besetting this argument is to explain why tragedy strikes believers just as regularly as it strikes nonbelievers. This situation raises legitimate questions about the goodness, the kindness, and even the existence of god.
13. The Argument from Justice ASSERTION: In this life the virtuous are not always rewarded for their virtue whereas the wicked often prosper and go unpunished. Since the balance of justice must be restored, there has to be an afterlife where the virtuous are rewarded and the wicked are punished. This clearly is a function of god. REFUTATION: There is no evidence to indicate that injustice in one part of the universe is offset by justice in some other part. This is speculation pure and simple. The assumption of a concept of cosmic justice is as controversial as is the existence of a god. Therefore, it cannot be used as proof of the existence of a god.
14. The Argument from Scripture ASSERTION: God exists because the Bible says so, and the Bible is the word of god. REFUTATION: First, this is obviously a circular argument therefore it has no credibility. In order for this argument to be taken seriously, the Bible must be absolutely correct and thoroughly consistent in all that it says. When objectively analyzed, however, the Bible is shown to be both inconsistent and unreliable. For more information, see Scrutinizing Scripture on this web site.
15. The Argument from Consciousness ASSERTION: Consciousness, a mental phenomena, cannot be adequately explained solely on the bases of materialism7. Therefore, it must be considered evidence for the existence of god. REFUTATION: Through modern medical technology the body can be made to function without a mind (brain dead). However, there is no evidence to show that the mind can function without the body. Thus the phenomenon of consciousness depends entirely on bodily (material) functions without which it cannot exist.
16. The Argument from Ignorance ASSERTION: Theists often point to phenomena such as gravity, which science as yet cannot explain, and offer it as evidence for the existence of god. REFUTATION: While this argument may provide some short term advantage, in the long run it always collapses as scientific knowledge expands. In the past gods were used to explain fire, rain, fertility, natural disasters, and much more. Although judged adequate at the time, these "explanations" were subsequently abandoned when science provided more plausible ones. If the theist is to use ignorance of the root cause of a natural phenomena as an argument for god's existence, then he must also grant ignorance of the existence of god. The argument from ignorance of natural causes rests on a false assumption. This assumption is that our knowledge of nature corresponds exactly to nature as it is. Thus, ignorance of natural causes would be the exact equivalent of the nonexistence of natural causes. But if this assumption were true, we would know everything there is to know about nature. Since we plainly do not, the assumption is false and the argument based on it must also be false. The position of the atheist is the only honest position. The atheist freely admits that he or she cannot explain the origin of the universe but does not go on to posit a contradiction by claiming to know that god originated it.
17. The Argument from Nature ASSERTION: The phrase "laws of nature" has led some theists to maintain that it implies the existence of a lawgiver, god. REFUTATION: Such a view is clearly related to how people perceive the origin of social order based on manmade laws. Scientific law is entirely different. For example, a legislative body may pass a law forbidding one person to deliberately drown another person, but no legislative body ever passed a law forbidding water to drown people. That is because nature's laws are not prescriptive; they are descriptive. The argument from orderliness is self contradictory simply because laws, such as the laws of causality, must exist before any cause can operate. The existence of laws implies order. Therefore order had to exist before laws could exist. So the laws of causality cannot be the result of any cause. These are laws which cannot be caused even by god.
18. The Argument from the Universe ASSERTION: This argument contends that, since any object we encounter is assumed to have some explanation for its existence, for the sake of consistency we must assume that the universe also has an explanation. This explanation is god. REFUTATION: There is a necessary condition grounding the assumption of explanation: other objects must exist besides the thing in need of an explanation so that there will be a collection of possibilities through which we can search to find the correct explanation. A boulder laying in the middle of the road, for example, can be explained by referencing other known phenomena. It obviously broke off the adjacent rock face and rolled down an embankment coming to rest in the middle of the road. To explain an object in the universe, such as the boulder, we have the thing to be explained plus everything else that exists wherein the correct explanation may be found. But if we are searching for an explanation of the universe, we do not know of the existence of anything other than the thing to be explained. At this point the theist is caught on the horns of a two-pronged dilemma. If by declaring that god created the universe, he is implying that god exists outside the universe, the universe then becomes just another object in an even bigger universe. It then becomes another case of explaining one mystery with an even greater mystery. If the theist maintains that god is part of the universe, then whoever created the universe also created god. God is thereby reduced to something less than all powerful.
19. The Argument from Existence ASSERTION: We have an idea of god, therefore he exists in our understanding. Since by definition we cannot conceive of anything greater or more powerful than god, he must exist not only in our understanding but also in actuality. REFUTATION: If existence in actuality is different from existence in the understanding, then to say that existence in actuality is part of what we understand by the term 'god' is just to claim that god exists as an actual being in the understanding. This is quite different from proving that god exists as an actual being in some manner other than that of the understanding. It is merely to claim that nothing which does not actually exist can be understood to be god.
20. The Argument from the Mind ASSERTION: Theists sometimes argue that because matter cannot create mind, god must exist to create it. REFUTATION: Any attempt to prove matter cannot create mind would have to depend on examples of matter being unable to create mind. But interpreting the mind-matter relationship in such a way would be to beg the question by assuming as true the very claim that is in dispute. If god did create the mind, just how did he do it. Would he make it out of matter? Would he create it ex nihil? Would he create it out of himself? It is just as inconceivable that god created minds as it is that matter created them.
21. The Argument from Faith ASSERTION: Theists often claim that ultimately nothing can be proven true, therefore we must rely of faith. REFUTATION: In our everyday lives we act upon faith almost constantly. For example we take for granted that the sun will rise tomorrow, the road continues beyond the ridge of the hill, and spring will follow winter. These are common sense beliefs based on observations and experience and there is good reason to believe them. From this situation the theist makes the unwarranted conclusion that faith in anything, particularly in god, is somehow justified. However, theistic claims are based merely on assumption, whereas commonsense beliefs are based on assumption preceded by observation and experience. Theistic claims are therefore less justified than are common sense beliefs, and faith alone cannot prove the existence of god.
22. The Problem of Evil An infant died a rather unpleasant death when the house in which it was staying burnt. God undoubtedly had the power to save the infant but stood by and refused to do so. Can we therefore call god good? Are there any excuses for his behavior? Some theists will maintain that it is of no consequence because the momentary pain the infant experienced in burning to death is more than compensated for by the eternal bliss it now enjoys in heaven. Be this as it may, the overriding question is, "Was it necessary for the infant to suffer or wasn't it?" Under the circumstances no rational person would deem it necessary. The infant's alleged acceptance into heaven does not change this fact. The only rationale for god's inaction is to admit that it is beyond our grasp and we will understand it all in the by-and-by. But to believe this we must first believe that god is good. So here again the theist is begging the question by assuming as true that which has not yet been proven true. The suggestion is sometimes made that it is best for us to face disaster without manmade assistance. By depending on such assistance we come to rely not on god's benevolence but on "outside" aid thereby encouraging apostasy and immorality. If this is the case, shouldn't we abolish modern medical care and/or do away with fire fighting organizations, police departments and jails? If these institutions, relatively recent developments in human history, result in a weakening of our moral fiber wouldn't it be better to abolish them and place our trust in god for protection? The dilemma for the moral question comes down to this: If dependence on outside aid is right, why was it so late in coming and shouldn't god, if he is truly good, see that it is provided evenly throughout the world? If, on the other hand, it is wrong, shouldn't we then move to abolish outside aid altogether? Of course, such a radical move would meet with stiff opposition, much of it from the Christians themselves. Every excuse we could provide to make the world consistent with a good god can be paralleled by an excuse to make the world consistent with an evil god. This is so because the world is a mixture of both good and bad and it is often difficult, if not impossible, to separate one from the other.
23. God and Christianity To deal effectively with the moral absurdities of the Christian belief system we must first deal with the widely accepted notion that we cannot judge god. Christians are constantly judging god. Every time they say god is good, god is just, god is merciful, god is love, god is omnipotent, god is omniscient, etc. they are, in effect, judging god. If no one in living memory has ever seen god, felt god, or heard god how can they know this? If god creates the rules by which behavior is to be judged and if these rules do not apply to him, then there is nothing that is improper for god. In that regard, what grounds are there to believe that god will keep any of his many biblical promises? It is just as likely that He will break his promises as it is that he will keep them. To assert that Christians will go to heaven and atheists will go to hell, as most Christians do, amounts to no more than wishful thinking. God may turn around and do just the opposite because according to the Bible he has at times indulged in such ungodly emotions as revenge, hatred, cruelty and capriciousness. Regardless of what he does god is right because to think otherwise is to be judgmental. The Christian God is by definition morally superior to human beings. A;so, god must know at least as much as any human being. But, so defined, god is as impossible as a round square or a two-sided triangle. To know at least as much as any human, god must know what it is like to feel such powerful emotions as jealousy, lust, hatred, envy, and rage. But when he does he ceases to be morally superior because it is precisely these emotions which serve to render us immoral. They are evidence of an imperfect character and god is, by definition, perfect. To sum it up, god cannot be morally superior to human beings
and at the same time know as much as they do. 24. God and Jesus The New Testament accounts of Jesus frequently make magnificent and exaggerated claims about him and then later admit, although indirectly, that they are false. Consider first the virgin birth. Both of Jesus' "parents" were informed by angels shortly before his birth that he was the son of God therefore god incarnate (Matt. 1:20; Lk. 1:26-35). Yet in Lk. 2:41-50, Joseph and Mary were "astonished" when the twelve-year-old Jesus was found discussing religion with the rabbis in the temple. And when they criticized him for wandering off from them, Jesus replied, "How is it that ye sought me? Wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business? And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them." Now if angels had really appeared to them to announce Jesus as the son of God, Joseph and Mary would hardly have had trouble understanding what he meant by his "Father's business." The Gospel of Mark opens with an adult Jesus being baptized by John the Baptist (1.9): Matthew (3.13) and Luke (3.21), following Mark's lead, also describe Jesus' baptism. These passages create a most embarrassing contradiction because the sole purpose of baptism is for the remission of sins (Mark 1.4). The implication is that instead of being the son of God, Jesus was just another sinner in need of redemption. Another subtle but relevant contradiction becomes clear with a careful comparison of the events immediately following Jesus' baptism as described by Mark and by Matthew. According to Mark when Jesus is baptized a heavenly voice declares, "Thou art my beloved son" (1.11). It is at this point that Jesus, and presumably his parents, learns for the first time that he is no mere mortal but in reality is the son of God. In Matthew, however, the divine sonship is recognized well before the baptism in chapters 1 & 2 where Jesus' unique conception, birth, and childhood are described. So, following the baptism the writer of Matthew has the voice saying something slightly different, "This is my beloved son" thereby reinforcing or confirming what was already known. According to Mark it came as big news on the day of his baptism, but according to Matthew they knew it all along. When the disciples were told of Jesus' resurrection, at first they did not believe it. They took the stories to be no more than "idle tales" (Lk. 24:11; Mark 16:11-14). One disciple, Thomas, would not believe even after he had actually seen the resurrected Jesus. He did not believe until he had touched him (Jn. 20:25-27). Obviously no body would have found the resurrection so unbelievable if Jesus had really performed those stunning miracles these disciples are said to have witnessed. At that point they should have been ready to believe anything. The truth is that the synoptic gospels as well as that of John possess all of the qualities of pulp fiction. While the geographic and political setting may be authentic, the central characters and the stories woven around them read like a fantasy. If we are to be honest, we must admit that when viewed objectively the evidence leads to the conclusion that the Jesus of the gospels never existed.
Pascal's8 Wager It is safer to believe because if you believe and are wrong, you have lost nothing, but if you disbelieve and you are wrong, you have lost everything. The problem with this alleged axiom is that to be completely certain of salvation one must believe every creed, join every church, and worship every god. Who knows which one of them might be the right one? Also, the person who resorts to this gimmick does so purely from a motivation for personal gain thereby strengthening the atheist's ethical position. The atheist prefers to adhere to reason now instead of throwing away his or her integrity in a selfish hope for personal gain in a "next life." Pascal's wager is also flawed in its premise that a person has evryting to gain, and nothing to loose, by adhering to a religion. Based on everything we know today our earthly life is the only life we will ever experience. Therefore, if we sacrifice our life in subservience to a nonexistent god, then we have gained nothing and lost everything.
Conclusion This can all be summed up by simply admitting that the existence of god is a logic absurdity. As has been pointed out, most arguments for the existence of god beg the question because they of necessity must assume as true that which has not yet been proven to be true - the existence of god. One of the best refutations of god I've ever read comes from Anne Nicol Gaylor, founder and president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation of Madison, Wisconsin. She wrote, "God exists in people's minds. It seems like such a simple concept. When there have been thousands of gods and dozens of "holy" books, all different but all claiming the only inspired truth, it should becomes apparent that gods are but creations of the human mind. Yet superstition is very durable. Through fear and ignorance, belief in deities continues to flourish. It has reached the point where it takes courage to dissent from popular belief in the supernatural. In our country religious viewpoints have gone unchallenged publicly for decades, and we are reaping the harvest of generations indoctrinated from infancy to believe in error." I would only add to that the fact that reality is not always what we would like it to be. Facing it can often be a tough ordeal which many among us can not find the courage to do. But reality can't be ignored forever. Sooner or later we must face it. The truth is that we are better off facing reality and dealing with it constructively rather than to go on believing in a pie-in-the-sky-by-and-by fantasy world which doesn't exist?
Sources The arguments covered in this paper are generally well known to theists and atheists alike. They are considered in most treatises on apologetics, rationalism, and atheism. Most of them go far back in the history of philosophy. Exactly who originated most of them is not clear. For that reason I have not made specific references. Besides the King James version of the Bible and the Encyclopedia Britannica, this paper is for the most part a compilation and summarization of selected works of several widely recognized investigators in the fields of philosophical and biblical research. They are noted primarily for their scholarship and objectivity and include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: Dan Barker; Losing Faith in Faith ______________________________________________ 1 Compiled by Louis W. Cable. 2 William of Occam, (also spelled Oakham)
a fourteenth 3 See Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. 4 The unavailability of energy in a closed system (i.e., a system that does not permit the escape or transfer of energy). If operating in such a system there would be a hypothetical tendency for the universe to attain a state of maximum homogeneity in which all matter is at a uniform temperature. 5 This law states that in a closed system, entropy tends toward a maximum; there is an increase in randomness, a tendency toward equilibrium and, consequently, a decrease of available energy. 6 A miracle is defined as any event brought about by the exercise of a supernatural power. (After M. Martin, 1990). 7 Materialism, a form of naturalism, asserts that mental properties can be accounted for by the laws of science. 8 Blaise Pascal (1623-62): French philosopher. |