Atheism versus God: How did the universe begin?

You sir are dead wrong about almost everything in the article.

I am referring to this article: Atheism versus God: How did the universe begin? written by Vasko Kohlmayer in the Washington Times Communities. See the article if you wish to read the parts I truncated to maintain length.

There are those who claim that to believe in God is not only unscientific, but also absurd.

This is certainly not the case. To the contrary, it is the denial of God's existence that contradicts both science and common sense.

I'll grant you that common sense might indicate a god. But mind you, our intuitions about the actual mechanisms of the natural world has failed us many times. In fact, many scientific truths are counter-intuitive.

So, what about science? No. As far as scientific evidence is concerned, there is not a SINGLE verifiable piece of evidence indicating the existence of a deity.

The prevailing scientific consensus today is that the universe began with the Big Bang.

[Truncated -- some background on Big Bang theory]

The Big Bang theory describes the initial event as a great explosion which brought forth all the energy and matter in the universe. On this theory, the Big Bang was the beginning of all things. Prior to it, there was nothing: There were no particles, there was no matter. There was not even space or time.

Just a note: The Big Bang theory does NOT claim that there was nothing in the beginning. Please see this previous post: Something from Nothing?

Unlike some creationist retards who make the retarded claim that atheists believe "something came from nothing", that is not the author's beef. So let's move on.

Most of those who don't believe in God say that the Big Bang was a chance event. In other words, the great explosion that brought the universe into being was a cosmic fluke.

But this is an unsupportable position to take, because things just don't happen like that. Explosions – big or small – do not come about without someone or something causing them.

Here's his main beef: atheists believe that the universe/Big Bang is uncaused.

And he goes on to illustrate it,

To illustrate, consider this.

[Truncated -- the analogy]

And yet many atheists make precisely this kind of claim. They say that the greatest of all explosions just happened. On this view, the universe just popped into existence spontaneously.

But does this make sense?

Firstly, explosions, as described, have known causes and we understand the mechanisms -- unlike the Big Bang.

But more importantly, no atheist claim that the Big Bang is therefore necessarily uncaused. In fact, the atheists that I've heard of thinks that the Big Bang has a cause --- they simply don't think invoking a deity explains anything.

Common sense and experience tell us that the world does not work like this.

[Truncated -- lots of drama about a claim atheists do not make]

The problem is, however, that in all of its history science has never observed or documented a single uncaused event.

The atheistic position concerning the beginning of the universe thus goes not only against common sense and our everyday experience, but also against the axioms and observations of science.

In light of this, it is the atheist's position that has an air of absurdness about it.

Yes, the caricature of our position is very absurd. That, I don't disagree.

The huge irony here is that a majority of theists would claim that their god is an uncaused cause. So the absurdity that the author claims atheists believe sits squarely in his own court. All the drama about the absurdity of believing that something is uncaused applies to their god.

Yet, without a hint of irony, he goes on to say

It is only reasonable and logical to assume that the universe – just like everything else – had to have a cause. Judging by the staggering vastness, complexity and beauty of the universe, the cause that brought it forth must have been immensely powerful, superbly wise and exquisitely imaginative.

Such characteristics are normally associated with an entity we term God.

This reeks of stupid: "It's SO PRETTY! ...therefore, goddidit!"

To believe in God – the transcendent cause of the universe – is thus neither illogical nor absurd. Not to believe in him is both.

Unbelief will remain to be logically and scientifically untenable until it can be demonstrated that it is possible for an uncaused event to occur.

On the contrary, unbelief is the ONLY scientifically tenable position until evidence demonstrates the existence of a deity.

To believe that the existence of a god is justified by science is both illogical and absurd.

"Well, it's not all bad!"

 "Why do you atheists always talk about bad things that come from religion? Why don't you ever talk about the good works like feeding the poor and building hospitals, etc?"

"Well, religion is not all bad! Look at all the good things that come from religion like charity and love and etc..."

This one type of defense of religion that I find not only weak but, frankly misses the point.

Firstly, it is basically arguing for the usefulness of religion not for its truth which seems odd when we're arguing about whether a god really exist. But we'll leave that aside since this post is coming from another angle.

"Religion does good too!" sounds almost reasonable, ie not reasonable.

You mean aside from stifling science and education, obstructing justice, denying LGBT rights and perpetuating a general contempt of humanity among other historical atrocities, religions also does charity and some good works? Wow, who knew? /sarcasm.

Put it this way: Say there's a rich guy who love his wife and kids. He is rich and successful businessman who provides welfare for his workers and donates to large sums of money to charity monthly. Every fortnight, he kills a family and rape the kids. But look at all the good things he does!

No. He's a psychopath and needs to be locked up. Same with religion.

What makes the defense even more worthless is the fact that ALL the good works religion does can be and (hopefully) will be done, if not superseded, by secular means. That means we can have all the good without the bad -- religion can and should go.

Treatise on Morality

Here's video by TheoreticalBullshit on the subject of morality.



It addresses why I say, Christianity has obedience not morality -- This applies to any denomination or religion where morality is defined by their deity.

Morality: Subjective, Objective

Very often, the debate over morality is bogged down by the issue over the subjectivity or objectivity of morality. Usually, the theists are the ones advocating that morality is objective (and has been made known to them by their gods) while some atheists would deny that.


Definitions
So, note the (relevant) definitions for objective and subjective.

objective — adj
1.    existing independently of perception or an individual's
       conceptions: are there objective moral values?
2.    undistorted by emotion or personal bias
3.    of or relating to actual and external phenomena as
       opposed to thoughts, feelings, etc
4.    of, or relating to a goal or aim

subjective — adj
1.    belonging to, proceeding from, or relating to the mind of
       the thinking subject and not the nature of the object being
       considered
2.    of, relating to, or emanating from a person's emotions,
       prejudices, etc: subjective views
3.    relating to the inherent nature of a person or thing
4.    existing only as perceived and not as a thing in itself

Note the different ways the words subjective and objective can be used. The two different ways is with respect to in/dependence of mind(s) and distortion or lack of it by prejudices/biases/emotions.

Now this means that referring to morality with those terms, objective and subjective, without adequate clarity will indicate 4 different positions. If you said morality is objective, you might mean that morality exist independent of minds or that morality is not biased by subjects. If you said morality is subjective, you might mean that morality is dependent on minds or that morality is based on subjective biases.


The Usual Confusion
As such, without providing proper context, telling me that you believe morality to be objective or subjective is potentially misleading. You MUST indicate what definition of objective and subjective you are using.

Objective (1) -- independent of minds
Objective (2) -- unbiased by subjects

Subjective (1) -- dependent on minds
Subjective (2) -- based on subjective biases

With that clarified, I want to state that atheists (not all, but there is a significant proportion at least) are proposing that morality is subjective (1) but its morals can be derived objectively (2). This would be what Sam Harris is proposing that science can study morality, concerning the well-being of conscious beings which is subjective (1), objectively (2).


Morality and Morals
The purpose of morality, simply put, is to guide human behavior and (social) interactions. I will state that I reject ALL claims of objective (1) morality. Any moral system that ignores the state of the conscious beings involved -- which is what it must entail in order to be objective (1) -- is not a moral system at all.

The purpose of morality is subjective (1) in the sense that morality only matters if there are subjects. It is not subjective (2) as long as we properly define what morality is and thus be able to objectively (2) investigate what is moral and immoral.

I agree with Sam Harris' view of morality where the purpose of morality is to guide human behavior and social interactions in the direction of well-being. Note the well-being is somewhat vague, like the concept of health, which I think is actually a strong point.

Take a look at the branches of normative ethics, at this Wikipedia page, particularly Consequentialist theories, and notice that they emphasize on one particular value to judge whether an action is or is not moral. The idea of well-being cuts through all that nonsense and represents all the values that we hold.


Theistic, Objective Morality
The main issue with theistic, objective morality is that there is no such thing -- it's almost a contradiction in terms.

If morality is based on their god, then it would be subjective (1) -- dependent on god's mind -- not objective (1) which they claim. The Euthyphro dilemma applies either way. Also, this makes morality arbitrary and quite meaningless -- it's obedience not morals.

If morality is not based on their god but simply because god has access to morality via its omniscience, then morality is not dependent on god. It would be possible for us to investigate morality objectively (2) whether or not it is objective (1) or subjective (1). But it also means that the theistic aspect is irrelevant.

Additionally, even if we ignore the previous two points and simply agree, for the sake of argument, that morality is somehow objective (1), it doesn't solve anything. Theistic morality is practically subjective (2) -- interpreting means that there are so many versions of so many religions, each offering a different (slightly or not) moral code. The theistic case for objective (1) morality and morals is just nonsense to begin with and still nonsense at the end.

What's more egregious in the case of Christianity and Islam (correct me if there are sects who disagree) is that morals DON'T matter because belief in god is the sole (or at least, critical) criteria to enter heaven. All the talk about homosexuals, abortion, rape and murder is irrelevant because if you don't believe, living a moral life will do dick for you, you will still fry in hell anyways.

In this respect, traditional chinese religious beliefs trump Christianity and Islam because its hell punishes people for immoralities as opposed to disbelief.

Confusing Abiogenesis and Evolution

Coming from a creationist's perspective, religious folk advocating some form of creationism always seems to fail to the grasp the distinction between the field of abiogenesis and the theory of evolution. Deliberately or not, they frequently conflate the two, claiming a "flaw" in abiogenesis therefore constitutes a flaw in the theory of evolution.

Even Wikipedia states different definitions for abiogenesis and evolution:

In natural science, abiogenesis (pronounced /ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/ ay-by-oh-jen-ə-siss) or biopoesis is the study of how biological life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes, and the method by which life on Earth arose.

Evolution (also known as biological or organic evolution) is the change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of organisms. Inherited traits are particular distinguishing characteristics, including anatomical, biochemical or behavioural characteristics, that are passed on from one generation to the next. Evolution may occur when there is variation of inherited traits within a population. The major sources of such variation are mutation, genetic recombination and gene flow. Evolution has led to the diversification of all living organisms from a common ancestor, which are described by Charles Darwin as "endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful".

Notice the distinction, please. Abiogenesis is the field of study of how life arose. Evolution is the theory which explains how life diversified. Even if I grant that we have no clue whatsoever as to how life arose, we know that once it did, it most surely diversified by the mechanisms proposed by the theory of evolution.

I'll be referring to this post made by a Christian in Singapore.

Right of the bat, the post would be more accurately describing its content if it were titled "The irrationality of Abiogenesis".

Probably the greatest difficulty of all for evolutionary theory is explaining how any life could have begun in the first place.

The theory of evolution is not supposed to explain how life begun. It describes how life diversified. Even if you want to shoehorn god into the picture as the creator of the first cell, that cell would be the ancestor of all life on Earth and evolved by mechanisms described by the theory of evolution. We know life evolved as surely as we know that the Earth orbits the Sun.

The spontaneous generation of even the simplest living organism capable of independent life (the prokaryote bacterial cell) from inorganic materials on the earth could not happen by random mixing of chemicals: it requires intelligent design and craftsmanship so complex that no advanced scientific laboratory in the world has been able to do it

The simplest living organism today is certainly more complex than the simplest living organism when life first started. This argument from complexity fails right there. Scientists studying abiogenesis are not proposing that the first cell is as complex as the simplest modern cell.

Also, this strange ultimatum between spontaneous generation of complex cells and intelligent design is a false dichotomy. Scientists are not proposing that the complexity of life as we know it today arose purely by chance. You get this monstrous error by conflating abiogenesis and evolution.

A living organism emerged by chance from a pre-biotic soup is about as likely as that ‘a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.’ Chance assembly is just a naturalistic way of saying ‘miracle’.

Again, this results from a confusion of abiogenesis and evolution. No scientists is proposing that a cell displaying the modern complexities appeared by chance. That would be just as nonsensical to you as to the scientists.

For example, check out the RNA World Hypothesis for what scientist mean by the first "cell".

In fact, some attempts have been made to calculate the probability of life arising spontaneously in his way. Kofahl and Segraves, authors of “The Creation Explanation”, give a statistical model in which they begin with a very generous assumption: that every square foot of the earth’s surface was somehow covered with 95 pounds of protein every year for one billion years. They then estimate the probability that even one enzyme molecule could develop in each one billion years of the earth’s history. The probability is 1.2 times 10^-11 or one chance in 80 billion. They note, however, that even with the generous assumptions and starting with fresh protein every year for a billion years, finding one enzyme molecule—for all practical purposes an impossible task—would not solve the problem at all.

The probability of finding two of the active molecules would be about 10²², and the probability that they would be identical would be 10⁷⁰. And could life start with just a single enzyme molecule? Furthermore, what is the possibility that an active enzyme molecule, once formed, could find its way through thousands of miles and millions of years to that randomly formed RNA or DNA molecule which contains the code for that particular enzyme molecule’s amino acid sequence, so that new copies of itself could be produced? Zero for all practical purposes.

Kofahl and Segraves report a study by an evolutionary scientist who formulates a model to calculate the probability for the formation, not just of one enzyme molecule but the smallest likely living organism by random processes. He comes up with a probability of one chance in 10^340,000,000—that is, one chance in 10 with 340 million zeros after it! Yet these evolutionary scientists still believed it happened!

The rest of the article is basically an attempt to awe audiences with numbers. And it's redundant - I'll explain.

But first, get this straight first. We're going to be talking about Abiogenesis - nothing to do with the theory of evolution. Unlike Abiogenesis where scientists are only proposing hypotheses, the Theory of Evolution is firmly established with mountains of evidence and has the consensus of the scientific community.

Here's the thing: Abiogenesis may have been a rare chance event. So throwing really low probabilities (even if the numbers are accurate) at abiogenesis is really redundant - we already know that.

What is important here is the claim that creationists are making: Too rare therefore God did it. But "God did it" is not an explanation at all - it has no explanatory function.

The field of abiogenesis at the very least demonstrates that it is possible for life to have occurred by natural means. The various hypotheses represent the ways by which life might have arose though we do not know definitively which path it took yet.

Postulating a god is not only unscientific, it is redundant. It is also a huge argument from ignorance. What, you scientists don't know how life arose? Ahha! Obviously God did it!

If your creationist argument take the form of "Too rare/complex, therefore God", it's a fallacious argument to begin with - still just an argument from ignorance.

Not knowing how life arose is not argument for god.

I recommend checking out TalkOrigins: Index to Creationist Claims for creationists (or any lay person) who don't understand what evolution is and is not.

The Status of Knowledge

This is probably one of the better videos I've seen addressing the status of knowledge with relation to the method of science. Created by AntiCitizenX, this video addresses the issue of why beliefs should be grounded on empiricism.

The most important message is this: Without empirical evidence, any claim may be rejected on that basis however "logical" it may sound. 

Logic alone is insufficient - Evidence is the ultimate arbiter of truth.

QualiaSoup has previously created a video addressing this same topic from another angle.

The ideas presented in these videos are important and far-reaching when properly understood. Too little people care about this - so, please do care.

You're mistaken

The following are excerpts from a post made on a forum in response to an atheist. Most of the ideas espoused in the reply contains common misunderstandings and logical fallacies. I will be explaining them here - not on the forum itself, for I've long given up of spending hours explaining these ideas over and over again.

The forum and author is not named and unnecessary. The post in question was not made directly to me either.

Here we go,

Moving on, I see that you're a materialist in that you believe that only things proven by science should be held as unequivocally true, and none else.

Granted, the person in question may hold that position but in general, most atheists don't think that. Things that are "proven" by science are not held as unequivocally true - not even scientists hold that position. Anyone who understands the Scientific Method would know that science do not prove anything with absolute certainty - all theories are thought to be tentatively true when sufficiently demonstrated by the evidence.

For me at least, "materialism" itself is also a tentative position.

However, that worldview only has one problem: there is absolutely no reason to think that to be true. Furthermore, that belief itself cannot be proven by the scientific method; i.e. it's self-defeating.

Absolutely no reason?

Again, "materialism" and "naturalism" are tentative positions. They are conclusions. And as far as evidence goes, they are "proven"

Okay, and before I continue, I think I should explain why I put materialism and naturalism is " " quotes. Those are allegations - they are positions I do not hold, at least not in the form I'm being accused of. For example, I am a materialist insofar that nothing non-matter/non-energy has been demonstrated to exist - and not because I think that non-material stuff cannot exist.

The word "proven" is useless unless it has been agreed beforehand whether or not it is being used colloquially. Because in conversations with theists/laymen, it is always used with regards to science and in science, we don't prove theories - that only happens in mathematics.

So, back to the charge of materialism. I think the belief is "proven" by scientific method in the sense that it works. Without the addition of supernatural/immaterial entities, science explains accurately the workings of the universe. Technology demonstrates that science knows what it is talking about. I'm not sure if I have to say more than that.

As for the notion that the Big Bang created everything and that there's no need to invoke the supernatural, you've quite frankly just put your foot in your mouth. Going by your line of reasoning, before the Big Bang there was just pure, utter nothingness (I'm aware that time did not exist before the bang, but let's just focus on the logic here). And if we're to be rational, I guess it's unanimously held to be true that from nothing, nothing comes, without exception.

Wrong on the Big Bang Theory. Utterly wrong.

I've explained this line of reasoning in a previous post (the video is critical, so watch that as well): Something from Nothing?

The short answer is, we don't believe that the universe came from nothing - that's a false accusation.

If the Big Bang was the absolute beginning, it literally is supernatural! The universe, being material, has to have an immaterial, intangible cause, I'm by no means intending to make a case here that that cause therefore is God. I'm just pointing out the absurdity of the said position, namely scientific naturalism. Consider this:

1. Anything that begins to exist has a cause. (God being the creator of time if he exists, did not begin to exist and therefore needs no cause i.e. you can't begin to exist when there's no time)
2. The universe has clearly been proven to begin to exist.
3. The universe has a cause.
4. If we postulate a material cause, you have just set into motion infinite regression as the material cause itself has to have a cause.
5. The universe's cause is immaterial.

If you disagree with the above, you inevitably have to believe that nothing created something. If that be so, all logic and argumentation breaks down and we have no need to continue any discourse. If you agree, scientific naturalism no longer is viable.

Premise 1 is just wrong in so many ways.
I'd suggest reading this essay by Dan Barker: Cosmological Kalamity instead of rewriting all the points myself on my poor blog.

However, I'm more fascinated by the fourth and fifth point. How does concluding with an immaterial cause solve anything? How does immaterial entities escape causality? Consider souls - are they uncreated as well? If they are not eternal, they demonstrate that having an immaterial nature does not grant escape from causality within that worldview. If that's the case, what is the logical link between the fourth and fifth point?

In any case, the argument is unsound.

But how does the argument relate to "scientific naturalism" being not viable? Science relies on Methodological Naturalism - it presumes naturalism but it does not preclude it. If there is a supernatural entity, science does not assert that it must not exist - it merely ignores it so as long it does not interfere with the natural world.

On other hand, skepticism demands that we reject the existence of such an entity until we have evidence to demonstrate its existence. Everything else is moot.

I don't think that it's sensible to write off God without examining thoroughly the case for it for it's far too important a matter to just dismiss out of probably either a fear of being accountable to your maker, or some vague notion of wanting to be your own 'god' and live life your way, or perhaps cursory cognizance of some trifling objections to his existence from existence of evil, even gratuitous forms of it, in the world, of which satisfactory explanations in the context of God exist in abundance.

This one is just condescending.

How about this for a reason: NO EVIDENCE.

That's all.

God cannot be proven scientifically simply because he's immaterial and science only deals with the physical world, though it can be shown that a theistic position is more rational than an atheistic one.

Wrong. It depends on the god in question.

The deistic god cannot be demonstrated to exist by science since he does not interfere with the universe.

BUT the theistic god does. And as long the god interferes with the world in some testable manner, science can in fact demonstrate his existence. Prayer is one way. If god answers the prayers in a statistically significant way, that would be some evidence in his favor. So far, this is not shown to be the case.

You can't see the wind, but you can tell it's there when the leaves rustle. God is not perceivable by the senses being a spirit being, but his fingerprints are all over creation, not the least of which resides in the cell in the form of DNA.

The analogy fails.

Wind is moving air. We have demonstrated with evidence that air freaking exist. God, we have not.

"Creation" here is merely an assertion - an argument from incredulity/ignorance. I'm not sure how is DNA supposed to fit into this but if it's something like "OMG, it's so complex. Therefore, god" (which seems to be what it usually boils down to), I'm not impressed.

And that's to the end of that post.

Something from Nothing?

This tired old canard of "Something from Nothing" is leveled at atheists by theists who don't know any better. This lie gives away the theist's ignorance of the science behind Big Bang theory (which rationalists in general accepts as true).

I think that the problem is worst than that. But first, I'll have to explain the phrase first.

"Something from nothing" is sometimes used by physicists while explaining the Big Bang theory. However, "nothing" is not the "nothing" that most people would imagine. Well, if there was just empty space and something just 'poofed' into existence - that would seem pretty absurd. But that is NOT what physicists mean. By nothing, they mean nothing that we know of exist. That is, matter, energy, space and time, as we know it, has not come into existence. Here, I'll let the physicists themselves do the talking:



But here's the crucial part - why I think the argument is just stupid right from the get go: NOBODY believes that. Even physicists would postulate something - say, a quantum fluctuation - that led up to the Big Bang.

Ultimately, there is still a fabric of reality. "Something" is still there. For the theists, it's their god(s) (which explains nothing). For us, non-believers, we generally accept what the scientific method has discovered about reality.

So the canard "something from nothing" is just bloody useless to begin with.


Nothingness
There's something deeper though. Why do people suppose that there would ever be "absolute nothingness"?

I'm not sure where I'm going with this train of thought. Perhaps you thought about it and might share some insights in the comments.

I think that existence is an intrinsic part of reality. If there is absolute nothingness, then there is no reality to speak of.

If there was nothing at all, no action, no entities, no na-da, nothing would ever happen. So something could never come from nothing.

Since we do in fact exist, that would also imply that there was always something around - not a moment in reality was there ever absolute nothingness.

Is that right?

Comforting. Really?

When challenged to defend religion or just the belief in god(s), a common defense deployed is it provides comfort. hope and etc. This also a common argument from sympathetic non-believers when confronted with anti-theistic or anti-religious sentiments.

This defense is fallacious and, in my opinion, superficial. And in the context of particular religions, it is an utterly warped idea.


The Fallacy
That which is comforting is not necessarily true. It is a fallacy easily understood but frequently overlooked when it is committed (as is the case of this defense).

The truth value of a claim does not depend on the amount of comfort it offers. The truth can be painful; A lie can be comforting. An example of a comforting lie is the security blanket. The blanket itself does not provide any security apart from tactile comfort. But the belief that it does provides the same effect.

I don't think I need to push this point further - This should be easily understood.


Preferring Lies
When such a defense is made when the truth of a religion is in question, it carries with it implicitly that a comforting lie is more preferable over actual facts. I personally don't agree with this but if someone wants to believe comforting falsehoods, that's his/her prerogative. It becomes objectionable though if he/she takes steps to make others believe in his nonsense.

Granted that someone may actually value comfort over truth, I am unable to accept that something is still comforting if you actually knew it was false. If I was in those shoes, I'd be hard pressed to find any shred of comfort at all after realizing that it's a falsehood.

From this point of view, it is not surprising that this argument is made by sympathetic non-believers. If they were believers, I'd think that they would find such an argument pretty condescending - "Oh they don't care about truth, they just want to feel good."

In any case, such comforts afforded by a belief is superficial if the belief itself is false of unsubstantiated.


Comforting? Seriously?
I find this defense ironic in the case of the Abrahamic faiths, especially Christianity.

Just think about it, which part of believing that:
A sky-daddy overseeing this universe under his totalitarian rule and he shall judge who shall qualify entry into heaven (though he already knew beforehand whom shall and shall not enter heaven or hell before he even created anything at all). This same sky-daddy allegedly loves you and answers your prayers occasionally only if it is part of his divine plan by miraculously messing with the laws of nature if need be.

However, you're a miserable wretch because your ancestors committed the original sin which the sky-daddy should have seen coming. Somehow you and all descendants alike, who had nothing to do with that, has to take the blame according to his game rules. On top of that, the only way he could forgive humanity was via the blood sacrifice of his only son (who, apparently, is also himself). His son, or himself, went to suffer in hell for 3 days before he un-dies to return to heaven to be with his father, or himself.

Where on Earth is the comfort?!

If atheists went to heaven

Here's Darkmatter2525 interesting video on the entry to heaven.



For those who can't see the point to this comedy, here's darkmatter2525's answer:

This video was about how if the tables were turned, we wouldn't want to see you burned.

That is, the heaven and hell system as described by Christianity is fundamentally unjust.

Why immaterial?

I have been thinking. It seems that there is something fundamentally odd (perhaps, just plain wrong) with postulating an immaterial (and supernatural) entity as the creator of the universe.

I'm not exactly sure but the reason for adding such a property goes something like this: The universe (in its current state) is an effect whose cause is traced back to the Big Bang. No matter how science may attempt to explain using natural/material causes, it will eventually run into the problem that the cause must itself have been an effect. Thus it would only just add one more step to the regress.

The solution (in their opinion) is to postulate an immaterial (and/or supernatural, I don't think the distinction matters too much) agent (ie, god) to end the regress. Thus, it is also called the uncaused cause. Other properties that comes along include eternal and intelligent.

But I think it is just odd.

How does postulating an immaterial entity supposed to solve anything?

In fact, couldn't an immaterial cause be itself an immaterial effect and thus be no solution at all?

If the solution lies in the property of being eternal, why can't the cause be material?

Perhaps I'm just missing something and this post is just brain diarrhea.

Logic alone

It has always struck me as a little odd that theists use logical arguments for the existence of their god at all. Although it is notable that those arguments have always been found to be based on faulty logic, that I shan't pursue here. Even if it were granted that those arguments were logically sound, I'd still argue that it is insufficient grounds for belief in the existence of anything at all, let alone god.

Reasoning alone is insufficient - Evidence is another critical criteria that should be fulfilled before belief is reasonably warranted.

A logical argument, if correct, only shows that the entity in question may exist. Emphasis on "may" - It has merely demonstrates that the entity should theoretically be in existence. But it does not demonstrate that existence of the entity itself.

If the logical argument alone, without any evidence in favour of it being presented, is sufficient to warrant belief in the existence of the entity being argued for, how is any different from arguing something into existence (ie, irrational).

Furthermore, in case for the existence of a deity, it does not even inform what sort of properties such an entity has (other than the ones within the argument itself). So this makes even odder when theists jump straight for the conclusion that that god is their god.

Take the cosmological argument for the existence of god for example:
1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
2. Nothing finite and contingent can cause itself.
3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
4. Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.

If you accept the argument to be true (which I don't), it has demonstrates nothing about the existence of any gods.

So, there is a First Cause. So what?
The identity of that First Cause is unknown.
The current state of existence of it is also unknown.
The properties of that agent is also unknown if it is still in existence.
Any attempts to link the First Cause to any specific deity known to humanity is tenuous at best.

The same goes for all the alleged logical arguments for the existence of god.

No evidence.

Is Atheism the New Fundamentalism?

I hasten to answer: Obviously NO.

But then I realize that most people haven't got a clue what atheism actually is. No need to even mention if they know what the "New Atheism" is actually about. As such, I would be misunderstood as being "fundamentalist".

Here's the playlist of videos for the Intelligence² Debate on the topic: Is Atheism the New Fundamentalism?

I love how Richard Dawkins addresses the charges made against atheism and the recent wave of "New Atheism". Clear as usual with doses of wit and humor. This is the first time I hear Prof. Grayling in a debate like this. I'm pleasantly amused by his style

As expected, the usual misunderstandings of atheism appeared in the debate (sadly, on the proposition's side as well... though I think it is a debate tactic to misrepresent your opponent).

I will address the few common misunderstandings here (yes, they've been addressed by Prof Dawkins and Grayling as well - I'm just bored, bleh).

I will be using the term "new atheist" to refer to the recent wave of atheists. But there's nothing new about new atheism other than the fact that we're more outspoken. Richard Dawkins has dealt with the perjorative connotations it comes with in the media.

So, moving on to the first misunderstanding...

[Part 5] 6:41 - 6:46
Is it not a fundamentalist position to say "There is no god"?

*Later in the video, Charles Moore actually claims that the new atheists were muddled between "probably no god" and "definitely no god".*

Yes, it is a fundamentalist position if you claim that to an absolute certainty dogmatically.

But the thing is, no rational atheist actually hold such a position. One common characteristic amongst the new atheists is that we are usually rationalists as well. Rationally, one cannot hold the belief that "there is no god" because we cannot be absolutely certain of a negative.

So we don't believe that "there is no god". Rather we don't believe that is a god or gods because of the lack of evidence for that proposition.

[Part 7] 6:08 - 6:21
Atheism fundamentalism is not a new phenomenon. If Professor Dawkins had learnt history of Russia and China, he would know that atheism conducted programs of violence against people of faith

Bullshit. Like Prof. Dawkins retort, it's a monstrous suggestion.

Stalin and Mao did not commit their atrocities in the name of atheism (indeed they couldn't have for there is no such logical pathway). In fact, both were simply operating within their political philosophies which are actually not very different from how religions manipulate the masses.

Prof. Dawkins begins his reply to the monstrous suggestion at 8:33. Prof. Grayling adds his insightful comments in Part 8 of the video following after Prof. Dawkins.

[Part 8] 4:20 - 4:35
It (the atheist bus campaign) said "God probably does not exist." Now, I'm a bit sad, I've got a dictionary along with me. Which suggest that someone of that point of view is an agnostic. Doesn't that mean that that's an agnostic bus campaign and you're agnostic.

Yes, actually. We're agnostic atheists (specifically a weak agnostic weak atheist).

'Agnostic' is used as an adjective. The same way we're agnostic about fairies because we cannot disprove them. Similarly, we're also a-fairyists - we don't believe in fairies as well.

Get it?

Retarded Creationists

This entry will be a follow-up rebuttal to the points the creationist (Wendy Wright) in this video have made. This is going to be long - and educational. And I will recommend videos along way - they explain more with illustrations.

Richard Dawkins tries really hard to explain that there is multitudes of evidence for evolution. Given the location of the interview, he cannot, of course, show the evidence themselves - that which Wendy wants to see now although she remains unconvinced despite having previously seen them (or so she claims).

Let's start. Here's the first video in question.

1:12 - 1:31
There has been an effort within the scientific community to censor out information... against evolution that proves that evolution may not be as many scientists believe. There has been many times in which evidence that was brought forward to bolster the idea of evolution turned out to be fraudulent.

Actually, no. There is no such thing. (Shocking, eh?)

The alleged frauds and hoaxes said to cast doubt or even disprove evolution were exposed by the scientific community itself. There is no need to "censor" such information simply because they known to be false. Not to forgetting to mention that they are not evidence that the case for evolution is built on.

Here's a video by AronRa that deals with a few of the hoaxes (Haeckel's drawings, Nebraska Man, Archeoraptor, etc) that creationists frequently claim to show that evolution is a fraud:

Moving on...

1:31 - 1:52
So what we argue for is to teach the controversy. Don't censor out the facts that goes against evolution... such as the famous pig's tooth, the tooth that was claimed to be an example of a prehistoric man and turned out to be just the tooth of a pig.

The "famous pig's tooth" example (Nebraska Man) has been dealt with in the video mentioned above.

What about teaching the "controversy" then? No, we shouldn't.

We should teach only science in a science class - thus only valid scientific theories should be taught. As much as creationists would like to believe the contrary, the Theory of Evolution is demonstrably true and is accepted by the scientific community. Non-scientific or even unscientific ideas have no place in the science curriculum.

We don't teach the "controversy" between Evolution and Creationism the same way we don't teach the controversy between Heliocentrism and Geocentrism. The same way we don't teach the controversy between Reproduction by Sex and by Storks. You get the idea (I hope).

2:36 - 2:45
There is no evidence of evolution from one species to another. There's microevolution within a species but not going from one species to another.

False. This is patently false.

There are plenty of transitional forms (ie, evidence of one species evolving to another) in the fossil record. In fact, EVERY fossil found is a transitional form.

I'd recommend these two videos, by AronRa and by standup4REALscience

3:11 - 3:58
Scientists are now claiming that they are the only ones that can speak on this issue. And yet when people who look at the evidence, go to the Smithsonian Museum on Natural History and when we look for where is the evidence to show evolution from one species to another all we find are drawings, illustrations, there aren't the actual material evidence showing it. So, while there are attempts to say that only scientists can speak on this. What we have are scientists that are then creating an isolated community and saying that we're the ones... almost like... it's almost like it's a religion in which only scientists can speak or teach on it and to teach everyone else and everyone else must believe what the scientists, what particular scientists, say...

This is what I call implicit arrogance. Look at the language used here. She paints a picture in a way that it seems that it is scientists who are being unfair. She goes so far as to claim that the scientists are operating as though they were a religion.

Now here's the wake up call.

YOU are not qualified to make valid comments with regards to the theory of evolution or any other scientific theory for the matter. If you're not trained in the field, you have as much to contribute to the discussion as a car mechanic has on performing a heart surgery.

Only scientists (biologists specifically for evolution) can speak on such issues because they are the only ones who are qualified.

So why did I say that she was being implicitly arrogant? Because she thinks her complete lack of qualifications (may I add critical thinking as well) trumps the scientific consensus by people who are trained and have worked in the field. Now, that's some fat-ass arrogance there.

6:07 - 6:34
The ad hominen attacks that people who have faith in evolution use against people who don't buy into that... I think shows the lack of confidence in the evidence. If evolution had so much evidence behind it then those people in favour wouldn't to be reduced to ad hominen attacks against those who say show us the evidence show us what's lacking

Ad hominen attacks? I'm guessing that that is referring to things like:

"You retard, can't you see the freaking evidence?"
"Faith-heads cannot be convinced even if you place the evidence right in front of them."
"Oh god, you moron. I can't be bothered to explain any further."

It's not the lack of confidence that result in such comments. It is the sheer exasperation when creationists refuse to be convinced even when presented with the multitudes of evidence for evolution.

It's NOT "you moron, you better believe what I believe."
It's more like "you moron, the bloody evidence is so freaking obvious."

7:28 - 7:39
What they claim to be the evolution of a foetus in the womb based on hand drawings which has been proven to be false and yet they continue to publish it in scientific textbooks.

That's about Haeckel's drawings. It was also discussed in the first video I recommended (watch it if you haven't).

The thing with Haeckel's drawings is that even though Haeckel admitted that a few of his drawings are not based on actual observation, he's still sort of correct.

Embryos do in fact look extremely similar during the early stages of development. Some of those features displayed during development are indicative of their evolutionary history (ie, evidence for evolution).

Here's a blog entry by biologist PZ Myers on the topic of Haeckel's embryos. (Extremely long article - you've been warned)

8:18 - 10:13 [End of video]
*Babbles on about morality and science then more on the alleged lack of evidence*

How we operate society is completely separate issue from the validity of a scientific theory. It is a naturalistic fallacy to claim that because evolution says so and so therefore we should/would do so and so.

That is a very simple concept to understand. We don't have to operate our society's on Darwinian principles. If the principles are true in nature, that's that. It is a retarded claim to say that those principles are false simply because we don't like them.

Facts are facts whether you like them or not.


** Wow, the sheer amount of crap in one video... I don't think I will start on the second one...

Substance Dualism

Yet another wonderful video by QualiaSoup.

The Default Position

When asked to examine a claim (more often than not, about supernatural events/entities), rationalists sometimes speak of the "default position". What about it?

Faced with any claim, the default position is disbelief until belief is warranted (by weight of sufficient evidence).

That simply means "I do not believe X exist until sufficient evidence is brought forth to demonstrate X's existence." That is very different from "I believe X do not exist." While it is tempting to equate the two statements, they are, in fact, two very different positions.

To illustrate the different positions, I'll use the court of law as an example.

Say we have a murder case and it's time for the judge to make their vote. He/she may judge that the accused is
[1] - Guilty
[2] - Not guilty

If the judge is convinced by the prosecutor that the accused is indeed the murderer, he would judge guilty. However, when the judge judges the accused to be not guilty, he/she may be holding one of two positions.

If the judge thinks that the accused is innocent, he/she judges the accused to be not guilty. If the judge thinks that the evidence is insufficient to make the case, he/she also judges the accused to be not guilty. Belief that the accused is innocent is not the same as being unconvinced to the contrary.

The same scenarios apply for claims of existence. While existence is absolute (either it exist of it does not), our state of belief can be one of the following:
[1] - I believe X exist
[2] - I believe X does not exist (Assertion)
[3] - I don't believe X exist (Negation)

One may ask, where is the fourth option that "I don't believe X does not exist". Using the court of law analogy, this option's equivalent would be "Guilty - I am not convinced of the accused's innocence."

Why is this option eliminated? Simple. It is same reason for the phrase "innocent until proven guilty". The fourth option presents the situation where it is "guilty until proven innocent". To avoid punishing an innocent mistakenly, this must be the case.

As for claims of existence, the equivalent reason has been said before - Non-existence until existence is demonstrated (That's the practical way of saying disbelief in existence of X until its existence has been demonstrated).

The elimination of the fourth option follows the same principles. If we took the position "belief existence until disproven", we would have to believe in an infinity of possible entities until they are disproven. That is not only impractical but just plain stupid and irrational.

Faith & Evidence

QualiaSoup is back with his latest video - Putting faith in its place. It's about the relationship between claims of existence, faith and evidence.

The video is wonderfully made - packed with information, precise and easy to understand.

Chain Mail: God Vs Science

I was hit by the following chain mail a long while ago and has since been wanting to post something about it on my blog. I have finally got about to doing so today.

Warning: This post is going to be a looonngg one. The contents of the chain mail are as follows:

A science professor begins his school year with a lecture to the students, “Let me explain the problem science has with religion.” The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.

“You’re a Christian, aren’t you, son?”

“Yes sir,” the student says.

“So you believe in God?”

“Absolutely.”

“Is God good?”

“Sure! God’s good.”

“Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?”

“Yes.”

“Are you good or evil?”

“The Bible says I’m evil.”

The professor grins knowingly. “Aha! The Bible!” He considers for a moment. “Here’s one for you. Let’s say there’s a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?”

“Yes sir, I would.”

“So you’re good…!”

“I wouldn’t say that.”

“But why not say that? You’d help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn’t.”

The student does not answer, so the professor continues. “He doesn’t, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?”

The student remains silent.

“No, you can’t, can you?” the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.

“Let’s start again, young fella. Is God good?”

“Er…yes,” the student says.

“Is Satan good?”

The student doesn’t hesitate on this one. “No.”

“Then where does Satan come from?”

The student falters. “From God”

“That’s right. God made Satan, didn’t he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Evil’s everywhere, isn’t it? And God did make everything, correct?”

“Yes.”

“So who created evil?” The professor continued, “If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil.”

Again, the student has no answer. “Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?”

The student squirms on his feet. “Yes.”

“So who created them?”

The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question. “Who created them?” There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized. “Tell me,” he continues onto another student. “Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?”

The student’s voice betrays him and cracks. “Yes, professor, I do.”

The old man stops pacing. “Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?”

“No sir. I’ve never seen Him.”

“Then tell us if you’ve ever heard your Jesus?”

“No, sir, I have not.”

“Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?”

“No, sir, I’m afraid I haven’t.”

“Yet you still believe in him?”

“Yes.”

“According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn’t exist. What do you say to that, son?”

“Nothing,” the student replies. “I only have my faith.”

“Yes, faith,” the professor repeats. “And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith.”

The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own. “Professor, is there such thing as heat?”

“Yes,” the professor replies. “There’s heat.”

“And is there such a thing as cold?”

“Yes, son, there’s cold too.”

“No sir, there isn’t.”

The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain. “You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don’t have anything called ‘cold’. We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can’t go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees.”

“Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.”

Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.

“What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?”

“Yes,” the professor replies without hesitation. “What is night if it isn’t darkness?”

“You’re wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it’s called darkness, isn’t it? That’s the meaning we use to define the word.”

“In reality, darkness isn’t. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn’t you?”

The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester. “So what point are you making, young man?”

“Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed.”

The professor’s face cannot hide his surprise this time. “Flawed? Can you explain how?”

“You are working on the premise of duality,” the student explains. “You argue that there is life and then there’s death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can’t even explain a thought.”

“It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it.”

“Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?”

“If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do.”

“Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?”

The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.

“Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?”

The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided.

“To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean.”

The student looks around the room. “Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor’s brain?” The class breaks out into laughter.

“Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor’s brain, felt the professor’s brain, touched or smelt the professor’s brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir.”

“So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?”

Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable.

Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. “I guess you’ll have to take them on faith.”

“Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life,” the student continues. “Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?”

Now uncertain, the professor responds, “Of course, there is. We see it everyday. It is in the daily example of man’s inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.”

To this the student replied, “Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God’s love present in his heart. It’s like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.”

The professor sat down.

There are various versions of the story (this version was taken from this blog). Some are shorter. And some even claim that the student portrayed in the story was Albert Einstein - LOL.

I'll put this outfront: Only the scientifically illiterate or ill-informed masses would be impressed with this huge argument from personal incredulity. Just look at the comments in the blogs that appear after a search on Google.

A quick glance of the story would reveal several fallacies for anyone who is well-informed about Science in general. However, I shan't be taking the arguments apart personally since I found a rather nicely written "sequel" to the story in question.

This was a comment by Ash on this blog:

The Christian points towards his elderly, crumbling tutor. "Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain... felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain?"

No one appears to have done so.

The Christian shakes his head sadly. "It appears no-one here has had any sensory perception of the professor's brain whatsoever. Well, according to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says the professor has no brain."

The class is in chaos. The Christian sits... Because that is what a chair is for.

The professor, amused at the student's antics, asks the student whether he's ever read anything about science.

"No," says the student. "I only know what I've heard in church."

"That explains your ignorance about what science is, young man," says the professor. "Empirical knowledge of something does not always entail direct observation. We can observe the effects of something and know that it must exist. Electrons have not been observed, but they can create an observable trail that can be observed, so we can know they exist."

"Oh," said the Christian.

"No one has observed my heart, but we can hear it beating. We also know from empirical knowledge of people that no one can live without a heart, real or manufactured, or at least not without being also hooked up to some medical equipment. So we can know that I have a heart even though we have not seen it."

"Oh, I see. That makes sense," said the Christian student.

"Similarly, we can know that I have a brain. I wouldn't be able to talk, walk, and so on unless I had one, would I?" said the professor.

"I guess not."

"In fact, if I had no brain I couldn't do anything at all. Except maybe become a televangelist!"

The class broke up with laughter. Even the Christian laughed.

"Evolution is known to be true because of evidence," continued the professor. "It is the best explanation for the fossil record. Even prominent creationists admit that the transition from reptiles to mammals is well documented in the fossil record. A creationist debate panel, including Michael Behe and Philip Johnson, conceded this on a televised debate on PBS. It was on Buckley's "Firing Line" show. Did you see it?"

The Christian student cleared his throat and said in a low voice, "My mom won't let me watch educational TV. She thinks it will weaken my faith."

The professor shook his head sadly. "Knowledge does have a way of doing that," he said. "But in any case, evolution is also the best explanation for phenomena that have been observed."

The Christian student sputters, "You--you mean we HAVE seen it?"

"Of course. Evolution has occured within recent times, and it continues to occur. Birds and insects not native to Hawaii were introduced just a couple of centuries ago and have evolved to take better advantage of the different flora. So this evolution has taken place within recorded history. Recent history. Did you know that?"

"Uh, no."

"Viruses other diseases evolve to become resistant to medicine. This is not only observed but it is a major problem that science must confront every day. Mosquitos in the tunnels of London's underground have evolved to become separate species because of their isolation from other groups of mosquitos. But enough about evolution. That doesn't have anything to do with our issue, evil, does it?"

"Well..."

"What does it have to do with our issue?" asked the professor.

"Well, if you don't believe in god, then you must believe we came from apes."

The professor laughed. "Evolutionists don't believe that people came from apes or even monkeys. They believe that humans and apes had a common ancestor."

"Wow!" said the Christian. "That's not what they told me at church."

"I'm sure. They can't refute evolution so they have to spread misinformation about it. But don't you know that many Christians believe that god made humans by evolution?"

"I didn't know that."

"In fact, of the four people who debated the evolution side on PBS, on William F. Buckley's 'Firing Line,' which I just mentioned, two of them were theists. One of them is a reverend, in fact."

"Really?"

"Really. Many denominations of Christianity embrace evolution. Catholicism, the largest denomination of Christianity, is compatible with evolution. So evolution is not relevant here, is it?"

"I guess not."

"Even if it were true that you have to be an atheist to believe evolution, which is not the case, and even if it were the case that evolution was unsupported by evidence, which is also not the case, this would not explain evil at all, would it. It is irrelevant."

"I see that now," said the Christian. "I don't even know why I brought it up. I guess I thought it was an example of how you believe something without evidence."

"Well," said the professor. "As you can see, it is not. There is plenty of evidence for evolution. And even if there were no evidence, this has no bearing on the issue of evil. As we proceed through the philosophy course, you will see how to use your reasoning ability to separate important issues from irrelevant ones."

"I'm guess learning already," said the student, looking at the floor.

"But back to the problem of evil," said the professor. "You stated that evil is the absence of good. How does that solve the problem of evil?"

The student said lifelessly: "If evil is the absence of good, then god did not create evil." It was evident that this was something the student had learned by rote and had often repeated.

The professor shrugged his shoulders. "Okay, let's suppose for the moment that this is true. This still does not explain evil. If a tidal wave wipes out a whole town, and 100,000 people die, is that evil?"

"There is the absence of good," said the student.

"But so what? The problem is why god did not prevent the disaster. If god is all-powerful he can prevent it, and if he is all-knowing he knows that it is about to happen. So whether he created the tidal wave is not relevant. What we want to know is why he did not do anything to stop it."

The student looked confused. "But why should he prevent it? It's not his fault."

"If a human being had the power to prevent a tidal wave wiping out a town, and this person intentionally failed to stop it, we would not say that the person is good. Even if the person said, 'It's not my fault,' we would be appalled that someone could stand by and do nothing as thousands die. So if god does not prevent natural disasters, and he is able to do so, we should not say that god is good by the same reasoning. In fact, we would probably say that god is evil."

The Christian student thought for a moment. "I guess I'd have to agree."

"So redefining evil as the absence of good does nothing to solve the problem of evil," said the professor. "At best it shows that god did not create it, but this does not explain why god does not prevent it."

The Christian student shook a finger at the professor. "But that's according to our human standards. What if god has a higher morality? We can't judge him by our standards."

The professor laughed. "Then you just lost your case. If you admit that god does not fit our definition of good, then we should not call him good. Case closed."

"I don't understand," said the student, wrinkling his brow.

"If I go outside and see a vehicle with four tires, a metal body, a steering wheel, a motor and so on, and it fits the definition of a car, is it a car?" "Of course it is," said the Christian student. "That's what a car is."

"But what if someone says that on some other definition it could be considered an airplane. Does that mean it's not a car?"

"No," said the student. "It still fits the definition of a car. That's what we mean by saying that it's a car. It doesn't fit the definition of an airplane, so we shouldn't call it that."

"Exactly," said the professor. "If it fits the definition, then that's what it is. If god fits the definition of good, then he is good. If he does not, then he is not. If you admit that he does not fit our definition of good, then he is not good. It does no good to say that he could be 'good' in some other definition. If we want to know whether he is good by our definition, you have answered that question. God is not good."

"I don't believe it!" said the Christian student. "A few minutes ago I would have laughed at the suggestion that god is not good, but now I actually agree. God doesn't fit the definition of good, so he's not good."

"There you go," said the professor.

"But wait a minute," said the student. "God could still be good in some other definition even if we don't call him good. Despite what we think, god could still have his own morality that says he's good. Even if we couldn't call him good, that doesn't mean that he isn't good on some definition. He could have his own definition anyway."

"Oh, you would not want to push the view that god might be good in some other definition," said the professor.

"Why not?" "Well, if he has definitions of things that are radically different from our own, he might have a different definition of lots of other things. He might have his own definitions of such things as eternal reward, or eternal life. Your supposed eternal life in heaven might just be a year, or it could be a thousand years of torture. God could just say he has a definition of reward that includes excruciating torture as part of the definition."

"That's right!" said the Christian, jumping up. His eyes were wide open. "If god can redefine any word, then anything goes. God could send all believers to what we call hell and say that it is heaven. He could give us ten days in heaven and say that that's his definition of eternity!"

"Now you're thinking!" said the professor, pointing a finger at the student. "This is what a philosophy class is supposed to do for students."

The Christian student continued. "God could promise us eternal life and then not give it to us and say that's his definition of keeping a promise!"

"Yes, yes," said the professor.

"I can't believe I used to fall for this Christianity stuff. It's so indefensible," said the student, shaking his head. "Just a few moment's thought and all the arguments that my church gave me in Sunday school just collapse."

"So it would seem," said the professor.

"I'm going to go to my church tonight and give the pastor a piece of my mind. They never tell me about important stuff like this. And they sure didn't tell me the truth about evolution!"

The sequel doesn't end here. It continues for another two short paragraphs.

I'm deliberately dividing the ending from the rest of the sequel - I don't agree entirely with what it is about to say.

The student, who stood up as a Christian, now sat down as an atheist. And he started using his brain--because that's what it's for. The other students in the class sat there, stunned, for a few moments. They knew they had witnessed the changing of a person's life, the redirection of a young mind from falsehood and religious dogma to the honest pursuit of truth.

The students looked at each other and then began applauding. This soon gave way to cheering. The professor took a bow, laughing. When the students calmed down he continued his lecture, and class attendance was high for the rest of the semester.

The statement in italics is, in my opinion, incorrect. I seriously doubt that anyone could deconvert within 15 minutes because of a short discussion with his/her professor.

Deconverting to become an atheist is not like conversion to a particular religion. There typically isn't a epiphany where one goes "Ahha! I don't believe god exist anymore!" Chances are that deconversion is a long process beginning with doubting the validity of your current religion and probably ending with understanding your philosophy in life. The learning doesn't stop even then.

Actually, I find the ending rather counterproductive as well. Any decent believer who reads such an ending would be put off by the rather condescending implication that they would be easily deconverted by such an event.

In fact, by writing such an ending, it would be committing the same mistake as the believer who wrote the original story in the first place. A condescending remark in a chain mail just doesn't quite fly.

Any opinions?


* By the way, it was this entry by the Singapore Mormons that probably prompted my orignal interest.

** On a sidenote, wait... there are Mormons in Singapore?! Wow...

Tracie's Fallacy Model

The Atheist Experience Episode 602 has Tracie Harris and her Fallacy Model. As the name of the model suggests, it address fallacies - Fallacies that theists typically make.

Here's a short clip:

But that's just part of presentation. Jump for 51:44 in the following full episode:

Fine Tuning, wuh?

The Fine Tuning Argument. The argument that argues that the universe's physical constants must have been "fine tuned" for the existence of life and, in particular, humanity.

I'm going to lump the religious version of the Anthropic Principle into this argument because the basic concept is the same - Everything in the universe is the way it is because it's fine tuned specifically for our existence.

Fine tuned by who/what? God, they argue.

I reject this notion on the grounds that the concept is based on a biased premise which is basically an egocentric idea.


Disgustingly Anthropocentric
The fine tuning argument is bursting at its seams with anthropocentrism.

On the basis that the combination of physical constants is too improbable and other combination is alleged to render human existence impossible, the Fine Tuning argument concludes that a god must have had fine tuned the constants for life and humanity to exist.

As for the anthropic principle, it puts forth that numerous variables that must be the way they are in the current universe we live in order for us to exist and persist. A frequently used example is the fact that our planet Earth sits in the habitable zone which enables life to exist and flourish.

In all examples, there is an unstated assumption - humanity is the intended result.

To illustrate the point, we'll use a deck of cards as an example. We will draw four cards. Also, we also want to note that certain combinations are significantly special to us - 4 Aces, Sequential cards of the same colour, etc. When we draw 4 Aces, we might feel "Wow, I'm so lucky." If we were to draw a Two of Clubs, a Five of Spades, Six of Diamonds and a Queen of Hearts, we don't find that it is of any significance except of bad luck.

Here's the point. However insignificant the combo we had, it is still as improbable as the combo of, say, 4 Aces. Mathematically, it can shown that the probablilities is the same. The difference being which combo do we assign significance to.

However improbable our combination of physical constants or variables in our world is, it is as improbable as any other possible universes. The improbability is not an argument for the necessity of god.

The argument was made because of the significance we placed on ourselves. It's a good thing to value our existence but it is not an argument for god.


The Improbability and Fine Tuning
To an extent, the improbability is a non-issue. Basically, the point is: Improbable ≠ Impossible.

To account for the improbability of, say, the emergence of life, simply invoking large numbers solves the problem. Given that we know some criteria that a planet must fulfill before life can arise, for example, lying in the habitable zone of the star. We know that the universe is huge, with lots of stars where planets orbit, of which some will undoubtedly lie within the habitable zone. However improbable the event, it will occur given the chance and luck.

For people who accepted the theory of evolution, the idea of fine-tuning/design seems out of place completely. The environment need not be fine tuned for the existence and persistence of life - the reverse is true, life adapted itself to fit the environment.

Videos with related content:
Why do people laugh at creationists? - Part 8
Why do people laugh at creationists? - Part 9


Evident in Religions
Understanding the Big Bang theory and the Theory of Evolution, in my opinion, does do some severe damage to the credibility of religions in general.

The anthropocentrism in religion is extremely obvious - Jesus died for you; God made the heavens and the earth for his creation; Humans are the pinnacle of god's creation, etc.

Ancient Man were so egocentric about humanity in general that even the gods they invented had to have humanity on the pedestal of creation - it always boils down to the idea that everything was made with humanity in mind one way or the other.


Shoving God into the Gaps
As humanity utilize Science to understand the universe better, god is frequently relegated to the gaps of our knowledge.

Wow, it's too improbable? Goddidit!

God guided the evolution to produce us eventually.

Abiogenesis must have been jump started with some god magic.

Who caused the Big Bang? Must have been god.

I find these comments laughable, if not tragic.

If we take what we understood so far and shove god into the unknown, an unusual picture of god emerges. Let's see......

Between the beginning with Big Bang and the formation of the Earth spans, (13.7 - 4.6), about 9 billion years. All the while, god sits his transcendent arse on his incorporeal throne as he waits for stars to go off in supernovas to produce the higher elements from stellar nucleosynthesis.

Since we're touching on the timeline, check out the entry: God's Timeline at Pharyngula.

Eventually, in some corner of the universe, in the Milky Way, in the Solar System, Earth is beginning to take shape. Then god allegedly jump starts abiogenesis. After that he guides evolution for 3 billion years or so (where for most of the time, life is all single celled organisms) to eventually produce his "pinnacle of creation."

I love this part - in the case of Christianity (after distortion to fit the facts), god goes to Earth to forgive us, by sacrificing himself to himself, for the original sin which was never commited.

Okay, some believers is going to think I'm being an arse - Too bad. The point is, shoving god into gaps doesn't quite help.

Not to mention, invoking god is historically futile: See an earlier post.


I haven't covered everything, neither do I claim to have properly rebutted the argument. So meanwhile, check out other objections to the Fine Tuning Argument and the Anthropic Principle at the Iron Chariots Wiki.