041_good-reasons-to-believe.pdf

From an atheist perspective, is it possible for a theist to have a good reason to believe in God? Or are all justifications for such belief either irrational or just plain silly?

The moral atheist is dedicated to clear thinking more than to disbelief in deities. For this reason, a moral atheist might recognize that someone who has certain opinions about how the universe works or how philosophical problems should be solved could reasonably conclude that a deity exists. A moral atheist has no problem with this, so long as the theist’s position passes the two-question test (it doesn’t contradict itself, and it doesn’t use reasoning the theist wouldn’t want others to use).

Given this, there are several reasons a theist might justify belief.

It just makes sense. Perhaps the existence of God seems obviously true to you — like it’s the default position for explaining nature. So long as you make sure that your convictions don’t contradict observed reality, this isn’t a problem. But because your opinion is based on an assumption about how the universe works, you have to acknowledge that it’s reasonable for an atheist to not believe in God because supernatural beings do not make sense to the atheist.

I have a feeling. You may believe in God because you have a deep-seated feeling of His presence or some part of you “just knows” that God is out there. Using your feelings as evidence when there is no other way to make a decision may be justified, so long as you grant others the right to do the same thing. If someone has a deep-seated feeling that pagan gods exist, that the Earth has feelings, or that there are no gods, you can’t say that they are wrong for acting as if those feelings represent the truth if you believe in God for a similar reason.

There is religious evidence. Some people find scriptural accounts of miracles compelling evidence that God exists. You might argue that hundreds of people saw the risen Jesus, and this is compelling proof that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead. If you rely on this kind of proof, you must do so consistently. For example, thousands of people witnessed the miracle of Our Lady of Fatima in 1917. That is at least as compelling as the evidence of witnesses of the resurrection, so to be consistent you probably need to be Catholic.

Revelation. A direct message from God may compel you to believe. Do you recognize that your revelation can never be compelling evidence to anyone but you? What if someone else receives a message from God that contradicts yours?

Science. If you think that God exists because there is scientific evidence that He exists (irreducible complexity, universal fine tuning, etc.), then you are choosing science over blind faith, which is a good thing. You are also admitting that, though you believe in God now, you will change your mind if the scientific proof for God’s existence is found to be lacking.

Need. A person under great stress may need something to hold on to for the purpose of keeping sanity and getting through the day. Although an atheist would not recommend turning to an unproven deity for comfort, it’s hard to blame someone who would feel hopeless without their belief.

This is something I struggle with. You say that you do not believe in God because there is a lack of evidence, but there can never be evidence either way. Science is not structured to make any statements about spirituality, so there will never be evidence for or against the existence of a god. There is no experiment that science could come up with to say a god does or does not exist. Therefore, you cannot say that you disbelieve in God because of a lack of evidence, at least not in the scientific definition of evidence, repeatable experimental results.

The problem with Western religion is that it is based on dogma. This is how it is because God said so, you can’t change it (unless you get together wear goofy outfits and pray long and hard about it). Western religions want you to accept something simply because it is written somewhere. Instead, religion should not be about worship. Religion is a connection to the spiritual. No spiritual method of gaining knowledge could be compatible with science because then it would be science, cold and ready to throw out results that don’t fit established theories or rules.

The problem with Western belief systems, science and religion, is they are quick to throw out that which is new. It takes decades, sometimes centuries, for the West to change its mind. How long did we believe the Sun revolved around the Earth? Knowledge must be experienced without boxing it in. There should be no concept of science or religion as knowledge, simply knowledge, that which we experience. By sharing those experiences, we learn about the world we live in, always open to knew knowledge, readily accepted. It is certainly difficult to come up with any generalities like science does, but knowledge would be far more complete, instead of full of holes like our current system.

Sorry for the rant. I’m taking a Phil class on Native American philosophy and it’s quite compelling.

You begin by saying that there cannot be evidence for or against God because the subject is beyond science, but you end by talking about spiritual methods of gaining knowledge. Wouldn’t such spiritual means of gaining knowledge, if they are valid, be evidence for or against the existence of a deity?

Personally, I do not rule out non-science-based methods of gaining knowledge. For example, I believe that personal revelation could be a compelling reason to believe in a deity (that is, God could make me believe in Him if He desired to). I also think that it may be philosophically possible to prove that a deity exists without appealing to science, in the same way that it is philosophically possible to prove that certain descriptions of a deity are impossible.

I agree that people can take a long time to change their mind about something. I think that in general modern science is much less susceptible to this bias than religion, though. Look at how long it took for quantum physics and relativity to be accepted — considering how radically they changed the way we view the world, I’d say that they were accepted quite quickly, largely because the evidence for them was overwhelming.

Is resistance to change a Western phenomena? I don’t know about that. Perhaps there are non-Western cultures that accept new information more quickly. I would be interested to hear about this, and wonder how often they quickly accept information that turns out to be incorrect (not that Western science always gets it right).

Finally, let me return to your point about science not being able to show by experiment that God does or does not exist. Although you are right that science cannot directly test whether or not God exists, it can test whether or not God is necessary. If science can find sufficient explanations for all natural phenomena without appeal to a deity, then science has proven that God — whether He exists or not — is not necessary to explain the world around us. On the other hand, if science discovers that there is no possible explanation for some phenomena, then that might be taken as evidence that we have found something science is incapable of dealing with. Fortunately, science has not run into this problem.

I presume that an education of the world has brought you (whoever -you- are, I apologize for not taking the time to personalize this message) to the conclusion of a truth in atheism. Surely, then, as an educated individual, you have come across in your studies what is referred to as “Pascal’s Gambit”.

If not, this idea, published by Blaise Pascal, explains that because there is no reason to prove or disprove the existence of God, then we must make a wager. If we gamble that God exists and we are right, then we win an eternity of happiness. If we suppose that God does not exist, and we are right, then we have lost or gained nothing, we will die and that will truly be the end. Once we are dead we will have no remorse for what we did while we lived. We will have no consciousness, no rationality, no reason, and no life. That is death without a God.

However, if there is a God, and we wagered to the contrary, then we have lost everything. We have lost eternity in Paradise, and earned infinite pain, everlasting suffering, and agony without end.

The question then is: what risks are we willing to take? Are we so certain, despite the lack of evidence for either argument, that God does not exist simply because he does not cooperate with the laws of the natural world? Or do we accept, even though it is illogical, that God is real for the sake of what we have to lose?

I have decided. This wager, this “Pascal’s Gambit,” uses logic where there is no logic. It reasonably justifies faith in a Creator. Christianity is quite arguably a flawed doctrine overall, and the Bible is certainly easy to misinterpret and is filled with obvious contradictions. But these fallacies are not evidence that God does not exist. There is no evidence of that. Nor is there evidence that He does exist.

Therefore, we must make a wager. God may not play dice, but we can.

I give an overview of my thoughts on Pascal’s Wager in my Why Risk Being an Atheist? tract.

In a nutshell, I think that Pascal is offering two choices where there are many, many choices available. Even if we decided to gamble that a deity exists, what do we do then? We have to then place another wager on which deity exists. And another on whether any religion truly represents the deity’s desires. And another on which religion is interpreting those desires correctly. And another on whether or not choosing our beliefs in this way will please the deity or make it scornful.

In my opinion, Pascal’s wager isn’t much help at all.

020_no-god.pdf

Can an atheist prove that deities do not exist? There are a number of reasons an atheist might conclude that neither God nor any other deity exists, and those reasons might be logical, philosophical, linguistic, scientific, social, or faith based/emotional.

Logical reasons include the belief that deities are logically impossible. For example, you might argue that it is impossible for something to be at once infinitely good, omniscient, and omnipotent. But at best this only proves that any deities that exist don’t have those qualities.

Philosophical reasons include the belief that deities could not possibly exist because, for example, the existence of evil proves that there is no infinite force for good. But religion has a number of counters for such arguments, and since religion is defining the terms here, it has a good chance of not being disproved in this way.

Linguistic reasons include the belief that God cannot even be discussed because nobody can really define the word “God.” But does this argument prove that nothing we would refer to as a deity exists, or does it at most prove that people lack the ability to describe or conceive of something that, if it exists, they would label “God”?

Scientific reasons include the belief that deities do not exist because science can explain everything without invoking them. But at most this proves that deities are not scientifically required or that they have created a universe that follows strict physical rules.

Social reasons include the belief that religious traditions are unreliable because they developed over the centuries in the same way stories we now consider myths developed. But proving something unreliable doesn’t prove it false.

Faith-based/emotional reasons include the belief that God does not exist because you just know there’s no such thing. Such an argument is not compelling to those who don’t share your feelings.

It is generally impossible to prove that something absolutely does not exist — particularly, in this case, because there is the possibility that a deity exists that you have not (or cannot) even conceive of.

Does this mean that atheists have to make allowances for the possibility that deities exist? Not at all.

It may not be possible to prove with absolute certainty that there are no deities, but if there are neither compelling arguments nor apparent necessity for their existence, then the moral atheist can conclude that the existence of deities is so unlikely that we should go ahead and behave as if there is no chance they exist. To do otherwise would be to open ourselves to having to make allowances for any vanishingly possible thing that anyone can come up with, and that’s no way to lead a rational life.

019_does-god-exist.pdf

Does God Exist? There are a number of reasons you might conclude that God exists, and those reasons might be logical, philosophical, linguistic, scientific, social, historical, or faith-based.

Logical reasons include the “first cause” argument or the argument that infinite time spans cannot exist. Atheists have excellent counter arguments for all of these.

Philosophical reasons include the argument that moral laws require a lawgiver or that there can be no justice without divine justice. Atheists either disagree with these arguments or find that they include assumptions that atheists don’t share.

Linguistic reasons to believe that God exist include statements like, “nature is God.” To an atheist, this is just a word game — it makes “God” almost meaningless.

Scientific reasons include things like concluding that God must exist because the odds of the universe existing without divine planning are vanishingly small, or that God must exist because there is no possible scientific explanation for existence. Atheists either disagree with the science invoked, or believe that the argument is creating a “God of the gaps” by replacing ignorance with a deity instead of with research.

Social reasons include beliefs based on tradition or the assumption that a popular belief is likely true. Atheists don’t consider either of these sufficient reasons to believe in something as significant and disjoint from human experience as an all-powerful being.

Historical reasons include the belief that ancient texts contain proof that God exists. Atheists don’t believe these texts to be reliable on the subject.

Faith-based reasons include belief based on a strong, personal conviction or sense that God exists. Atheists do not have these convictions or sensations.

If you say that you have a compelling argument for the existence of God, what would you do if someone came up with a bulletproof refutation of the argument? Would you then change your mind about God’s existence or would you just look for another argument to support your belief in God? If you would not change your mind, then is your argument really your reason for belief, or is it a justification you use when in truth you would believe in God for other reasons? And if your belief is based on something other than your argument, then why use the argument in the first place?

This is one of the places where moral atheism diverges most from religion. Given a sufficiently powerful argument, the moral atheist would consider a change in position on the existence of God. Most religious people are not open to the possibility of such a significant change in their beliefs.

014_fine-tuned.pdf

In physics, there are many physical constants — the gravitational and cosmological constants, for example — can be used to describe how the universe works. It has been argued that even a small change in some of these constants would make life impossible, so an intelligent supernatural force must have overseen the creation of the universe, fine-tuning these constants for our benefit.

The argument might go something like this: “At the moment of the Big Bang, the gravitational constant could have been any number. But if it were just a small fraction of a percent different than it is now, either gravity would have been too strong to allow life to arise, or gravity would have been too weak to allow stars and planets to form. The odds of the perfect value for this constant arising from chance are inconceivably small, so an intelligence must have assigned the value. That intelligence is God, creator of the universe.”

The argument assumes that when the universe came into being physical constants were assigned values in some random way. But the fact is that we don’t know nearly enough about how the laws of physics work to make such an assumption. Sure, it could be true, but it might also be true that there is a physical law that determines these constants’ values, and if there is such a law, perhaps it only results in universes that could support life — we just don’t know. In fact, it’s possible that the current values for these constants are the only ones that are physically possible.

Saying that there are only a few allowable values for a constant within a gigantic range of possibilities is another way of making the same logical mistake. One could argue, “Humans could have been an inch tall or five miles tall, but there’s only a small range of heights that would have allowed life as we know it, so human height is divinely controlled.” We know that this is a ridiculous argument because we know that there are physical reasons why a human can’t be super small or super tall. Perhaps when we know more about physics, we’ll see that gravity has the same kinds of limits.

Even if the constants are indeed randomly assigned values, no deity is required. What if there is a massive number of universes outside of our own — so many that the odds of at least one having physical constants suitable for life are actually pretty good? If we can’t detect these universes, a reasonable person might ask why they are a better explanation than a deity. The answer is that we know universes exist — we live in one — but we don’t have an example of a deity that we can point to. It’s more likely that there are many things that we already know about than that there exists a new, all-powerful something that we do not have evidence for.

It’s also important to keep in mind that a universe where the physical constants wouldn’t allow us to live would not necessarily be devoid of life. Some physicists and experts in alternative biochemistry calculate that life could exist in some universes drastically different from ours.

So if we’re going to calculate odds, odds are that fine tuning really isn’t necessary to explain anything.

You are completely wrong in your essay about the creation of the universe. The big bang does prove that God exists. The big bang had to some from somewhere, and it couldn’t have come from the universe because something can’t come from itself, so it must have come from something that isn’t the universe, God.

You are using two different definitions of the word “universe” here. There’s our universe, which is what started with the Big Bang, and there’s the entire universe, which encompasses all natural things that exist. Our universe may have been the result of something in the entire universe, making God unnecessary.

013_cosmological-argument.pdf

The argument for God as a necessary first cause of the universe comes in many forms. A popular one was put forth by William Lane Craig who argued: “Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe must have a cause.” He reinforces the second premise by saying that there cannot be an infinite series of causes, because an infinite span of time is an impossibility.

If the universe must have had a cause outside of itself, does that prove that God — or any deity — exists? Let’s look at the argument piece by piece.

The first premise, that everything that begins to exist has a cause, seems pretty uncontroversial. But the reason it seems uncontroversial is that experience tells us that every effect has a cause. If we’re going to rely on experience when interpreting this argument, how about our experience that every cause of something in nature is a natural cause? That experience would lead us to expect that whatever caused the universe is natural, not supernatural.

We all agree that our universe began to exist at the time of the Big Bang. We also agree that something outside our universe likely exists. But while the theist proposes something supernatural existing outside our universe, the atheist proposes that there is something natural. At this point, neither possibility can be investigated, so why assume the supernatural?

It might seem that a natural explanation implies an infinite period of time outside our universe. Perhaps it does. But what is the alternative? If there was a point before time existed, then time had a beginning and, by Craig’s argument, must have had a cause. But cause can’t precede effect if time doesn’t exist, so the cause of time could not have preceded it.

This gives us three non-God possibilities: cause doesn’t always come before effect, there was indeed an infinite span of time somewhere, or there is something about the universe we don’t understand. If cause doesn’t need to come before effect, opening the door for God to have created time, and we might ask if, in that case, the universe in some sense may have simply caused itself without divine intervention or planning.

But even if we grant that this argument proves the universe must have had a cause, how does that help the argument for the existence of God? Despite what some theists might argue, scientists don’t all believe that the universe appeared uncaused from absolute nothingness. There are, in fact, a number of theories about how our universe (and, perhaps, other universes) might have come into being that make no appeal to a deity or divine intelligence.

When you come right down to it, if this argument proves anything, it’s nothing we don’t already know.

012_lord-liar-lunatic.pdf

In Mere Christianity, C. S. Lewis wrote: “A man who said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic … or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God.”

This argument for the divinity of Jesus is sometimes referred to as the “Lord, Liar, or Lunatic” argument. In essence, Lewis is saying that Jesus either really was the son of God, he was pretending to be, or he was insane. And since Lewis considers the last two possibilities unthinkable (because he’s taking it as given that Jesus was a great moral teacher), he concludes that Jesus must indeed be divine.

There are many problems with this argument.

The most obvious problem, from an atheist perspective, is that an unbiased person might not conclude that “great and moral” are necessary characteristics of Jesus. If Jesus is lying about his divinity, then he is not moral. If he is insane, then perhaps he is not great.

Beyond this, the argument is also invalid because it presents a false dilemma: Lord, liar, and lunatic aren’t the only possible solutions to the question of why Jesus would say that he is the son of God.

Other possibilities include:

Jesus was misunderstood. Perhaps, for example, Jesus made statements that he intended as words from God, which were misunderstood (and misrecorded) as words from Jesus as God.

Jesus was misrepresented. Those who wrote about Jesus may have written what they “knew” he meant, as opposed to what he really said.

The story of Jesus was badly reported. Those who wrote down Jesus’ words may have misremembered what Jesus said, due to bias, social factors, or simply the passage of time.

Jesus’ life was fictionalized. Accounts of Jesus’ life may have been intentionally embellished to make them more forceful, make them conform to expectations, or to address current societal issues.

Jesus was fictional. Jesus may never have existed.

Jesus was wrong. Although he was honest and sane, Jesus may have relied on apparent fulfilment of Biblical prophecy and concluded that he was indeed the son of God, even though that was not the case.

Any of these possibilities might be debated, but the fact that they exist at all shows that Lewis was not being thorough in his argument, rendering it invalid.

011_pascal’s-wager.pdf

If God exists and you believe in Him, you will be eternally rewarded, but if you do not believe, you will be eternally punished. If there is no God, you are neither punished nor rewarded, no matter what you believe. So if believing in God might reap eternal reward and risks nothing, why not believe in God?

This argument is a form of Pascal’s Wager, and it is still used today, some four-hundred years after its creation. But does it justify belief in God? Let’s take a look.

An important element of the argument is that you lose nothing if you choose to believe in God and it turns out that God does not exist. But is this the case? Certainly, to be a follower of God worthy of Heaven, there must at least be some requirements of prayer, behavior, and belief. Each of these has a potential cost in time, social standing, and intellectual integrity.

Also, this argument assumes that you have a choice between theism and atheism. But in reality there are a great many religions to choose from, and many of them are mutually exclusive. Following the argument’s reasoning, shouldn’t you choose the religion that is the least inclusive? For example, if Catholics believe you can go to Heaven by living a good life but Protestants believe that only Protestants go to Heaven, should you choose Protestantism because then you win if either Catholicism or Protestantism is true?

And should amount of reward enter into the equation? Should you choose a religion that offers your own planet or a huge harem in the afterlife over one that just offers eternal life?

The argument also seems to place high value on the benefits of belief. For example, would you buy a lottery ticket, put it in a safety deposit box, never check to see if it won, and then be comforted by the knowledge that after you die your children may find it and be millionaires?

Pascal’s wager assumes that God doesn’t care whether belief is sincere or not, so long as you believe. But what if God values someone who intelligently (but incorrectly) chooses atheism over someone who chooses theism purely, selfishly, because it offers the best possibility of reward?

Finally, this argument does not work at all if we cannot choose what we believe. Surely just going through the motions of religion shouldn’t be enough to earn one a ticket to Heaven (since God would know you were not being sincere), so you can’t just choose religion, you have to choose to completely believe that religion.

Can you do that? Can you honestly choose what you believe? Or do you have to be convinced that something is true before you will believe it? If you don’t have to be convinced, perhaps you should ask yourself what else there is that you believe simply because you desire to instead of because there is adequate reason to believe. You may be living in a fantasy world and not even realize it. Certainly there is risk in doing that.