067_merciful-and-just.pdf

The Christian God is sometimes described as both infinitely merciful and infinitely just. But is it logically possible for one being to have both of these qualities?

Mercy means having pity or compassion for somebody in one’s power. It is typified by the judge who gives a man a lower sentence because the man’s crime was motivated by need instead of by greed. What, then, would infinite mercy be?

One could argue that infinite mercy would mean moving as far as possible in the direction of mercy — that is, always forgiving crimes. One could also argue that infinite mercy means having infinite compassion for the wrongdoer and acting accordingly. If the wrongdoer is truly unrepentant and had no excuse for committing a crime, an infinitely merciful being might still think punishment was in order.

But this runs into a problem when the infinitely merciful being is God. Because God has complete understanding of human frailties, it may be that there is no such thing as a sinful human who has no excuse for committing a crime. If we are all more or less flawed by nature, God’s infinite mercy might lead Him to forgive all sins.

But would this be just?

Justice is the administering of punishment that is appropriate for a crime. An infinitely just being would always assign appropriate punishment — no more, no less.

In the context of this discussion, justice gets us in trouble because there is no good, objective way to assign it. Is it just to let a murderer avoid jail because his violence is motivated by insanity? It might be. Is it just to punish someone eternally for disobeying the command of an infinite being? Perhaps.

Then again, perhaps not. There is no yard stick by which we can measure such things.

Christians sometimes argue that humanity is so sinful that everyone falls short of deserving to go to Heaven. Allowing humans an ultimate reward when they are “soiled” by sin would not be just, so God cannot allow it.

But because God is infinitely merciful, He sent a portion of Himself to Earth as a human to be killed, and this killing of an innocent divine being in human form became a sacrifice of such significance that it serves to justly offset the sins of anyone who accepts it. This allows both justice and mercy to be served.

Or so they say.

Is justice served if a father willingly goes to jail for the crimes of his child? Would a merciful judge allow such a sentence to be carried out? Can justice ever be served by the execution of an innocent? Is it just that those who believe in Jesus are not punished for their sins while those who have not heard of Jesus are eternally tormented? And why would an infinitely wise and loving God create a universe where something so bizarre had to be done to maintain balance?

As a moral atheist, I can appreciate the Christian desire to keep their philosophy consistent and find a solution the mercy vs. justice conflict. But, to me, it all sounds too contrived to make any sense.

066_problem-of-hell.pdf

Hell, in the traditional Christian sense, is a place of eternal torment where unrepentant and unredeemed sinners are punished until the end of time. Does a Hell of this kind make sense, given that it was supposedly created by an infinitely just and loving God?

The first thing we have to decide is what kind of crime is so severe that justice demands eternal punishment in payment. In those versions of Christianity that hold with this image of Hell, being born human and not accepting Jesus as your savior may be considered sufficient to earn you damnation. They might say that all the little sins over the course of one’s lifetime, particularly when added to the “original sin” of Adam and Eve, earn one an eternity of torment.

This essentially makes being tortured forever humanity’s default state, something you have to get out of instead of something that you are given as punishment for a specific act.

Others might say that the sin of rebelling against God — either by refusing to recognize him or breaking his laws — is such a large sin that eternal punishment is completely just. But isn’t the magnitude of a crime in part determined by how much damage it does or could do? And isn’t it true that a mere human could not possibly do any damage to this crime’s victim — God? That leaves us with eternal punishment for doing something that caused no damage. Not exactly just.

Perhaps sinful humanity is so dirty and repulsive that we can’t be allowed into Heaven without first being cleaned by Jesus. Okay, maybe that’s the case. But then why is the only alternative to Heaven endless torture? Why couldn’t God create a place that isn’t Heaven, but that the only thing horrible about it is its distance from God? Wouldn’t that be more loving and just?

Some argue that God doesn’t send anyone to Hell. Rather, people choose to go to Hell by rejecting God. If that’s the case, don’t you think these people would change their mind as soon as they experienced Hell? Wouldn’t they immediately repent of their sins and accept God? If they didn’t, could they in any sense be said to be in their right mind, and might not it be unjust for God to be punishing crazy people so severely?

Some religious people say that it is too late to change your mind once you are in Hell. You had your chance to repent, but didn’t take it. This makes as much sense as a parent whose child wants to eat a cactus forcing the child to eat the whole thing after it pricked its tongue and found that cactus-eating is a bad idea. And to make the analogy more exact, the parent wouldn’t just make the child eat the cactus, it would make the child eat cactus after cactus for all eternity.

This doesn’t sound like justice.

In fact, nothing about Hell sounds like justice.

Could an infinitely loving, good, and just being really have created such a system?

065_problem-of-evil.pdf

What is the problem of evil? And can it be used to prove that the existence of God is logically impossible?

In a nutshell the problem of evil is this: If God is infinitely powerful, He can do anything. If God is infinitely good, He will want to eliminate evil. If God cannot eliminate evil, He is not infinitely powerful. If God will not eliminate evil, He is not infinitely good. Since there is evil in the world, God is either not infinitely powerful or not infinitely good.

It’s a good argument, but even if you agree that it is valid, all it can do is show that God cannot have a certain combination of attributes, not that God cannot logically exist. But is the argument valid?

Let’s look at it in the light of two kinds of evil: human evil and natural evil.

In this context, human evils include anything that is not morally good, from murder and torture down to petty theft and telling minor lies. If God was willing and able to eliminate these evils, He could easily do so by either eliminating the human desire to do such things or by dooming murder attempts to failure, helping torture victims escape, interrupting petty thefts, causing lies to go unheard, etc.

If God is good and powerful, why doesn’t he eliminate these evils? The standard answer is that preventing people from choosing to do evil would eliminate free will, and eliminating free will is a larger evil than allowing these evils to move forward.

Assuming it’s true that free will has such a high value, this might be a good argument. But what about the possibility of God eliminating great evils without meaningfully interfering with free will? Couldn’t God help an assassination attempt against Hitler succeed? Or inspire someone to recognize a wanted man on the street so that he could be captured by the police before committing another heinous crime? Or give a drunk’s car engine trouble?

Natural evils — things like earthquakes, disease, and massive accidents — do not involve human intent, so preventing them would seemingly not interfere with free will. Why doesn’t God intercede to stop them?

The standard reply is that although God created a perfect world, humanity’s sin caused the world to become imperfect, introducing birth defects, parasites, natural disasters, etc.

There are only two ways that this can make sense: either natural evil is a necessary consequence of sin, or God intentionally inserted flaws into the world as punishment for sin.

Would great sin necessarily damage DNA, create germs and viruses, and cause natural disasters to enter a perfect world? I don’t see how that makes sense.

That leaves the possibility that God created these evils as punishment for sin. I don’t see how children being killed by disease and disaster is reasonable punishment for the commission of any sin. Surely there should be great punishment for whomever committed the sin, but to punish everyone who ever lives after the commission of the sin doesn’t seem just.

Which leaves us taking God’s infinite goodness on faith. And atheists aren’t going to do that.

064_atheists-evil.pdf

Individual atheists may be good or bad, just as individual theists may be good or bad. But what about atheism itself? Is atheism, as some would argue, evil? The answer depends on what we mean by “evil.”

Is evil anything that causes significant harm, like a tornado or a thumbtack accidentally left where someone might step on it? This seems to be setting a pretty low bar for evil, but even so it’s difficult to call atheism evil by this definition. There are plenty of atheists who are not harmed by their beliefs and are not lead by their beliefs to harm others. Sure, there are some atheists who are depressed or immoral, but there are copious theists with these qualities as well.

Is committing a sin — by breaking one of the Ten Commandments, for example — evil? Atheism certainly breaks the first one or two commandments, but if that makes atheism evil then any set of beliefs that does not include the Judeo-Christian God — or that includes a “false” version of that god — could be called evil. In this case, “evil” becomes a synonym for “doesn’t obey Biblical morality,” and it’s trivial to point out that atheists don’t follow the Bible.

Morally objectionable things might be said to be evil, but atheism wouldn’t be evil under this definition. There is no moral requirement to believe in deities, and atheism does not require any behavior that could be said to be immoral.

You might say that things that arise from bad behavior — such as graffiti and crime — are evil. But to say that atheism is evil in this sense is to say that atheism arises from bad behavior, and that is not the case.

Perhaps you call anything that encourages or prefers bad behavior evil. Unless you can show that not believing in deities is in and of itself bad behavior, you won’t catch atheism in this net.

Similarly, it can be said that anything that takes a stand against good is evil. But atheism isn’t against good. Maybe you mean that anything that takes a stand against Christianity is evil. Although atheists don’t agree with Christianity, atheists aren’t all against Christianity. And this definition is probably not a good one, particularly considering that by using this definition one might have been able to call Martin Luther “evil” in his day since he took a stand against the established church.

Finally, perhaps you are keeping things simple and defining evil as something that forward’s Satan’s goals. But how do you know what Satan’s goals are? If Satan wants a certain politician elected to office because he knows it will lead to war, is electing that politician evil? Or perhaps Satan wants to make humanity subservient to him by ridding the world of scientific thinking and free thought, in which case moral atheism is working counter to Satan’s plans. The fact is, you don’t know for sure what Satan wants, so you shouldn’t pretend that you do.

And while you’re at it, you shouldn’t call atheists evil until you can explain exactly what you mean.

063_ray-comfort.pdf

Some time ago, Christian minister Ray Comfort published a list of “Questions Atheists Can’t Answer.” Surprisingly, they’re not all that tough. Here are brief responses from a moral atheist perspective.

What was in the beginning?

There probably wasn’t a beginning. The Big Bang likely occurred in the context of a space that had no starting point in time.

How will life on earth end?

The dying sun will destroy all life (if something else hasn’t destroyed it already).

What happens after death?

Physical decay.

What is the purpose of existence?

Life has whatever purpose you bring to it.

Why is there order in all of creation?

So far as there is order, it comes about through natural processes. I’d say that there’s far more disorder in the universe than order, though.

Why is there morality in every civilization?

Because without morality, there is no civilization. I hasten to point out, though, that not every civilization has a morality you’d agree with.

Why does every civilization believe in a Creator?

Because until relatively recently humanity didn’t know enough to realize that nature doesn’t require a creator.

Why does every sane person have a conscience, even when it is not dictated by society?

Because we define people without a conscience as insane (with dissocial personality disorder, for example). This makes the question meaningless: “Why does every person with a conscience have a conscience?”

How did nothing create everything?

I doubt that anyone believes that nothing created everything.

Which came first — the chicken or the egg?

It depends on how you are defining your terms. I’d say the egg.

062_quick-answers2.pdf

Einstein believed in God. Do you think you’re smarter than Einstein?

Actually, Einstein didn’t believe in the Christian God. But in any case, being smart doesn’t guarantee that someone is always right about everything.

The founding fathers intended the United States to be a Christian nation. Atheists aren’t welcome.

On the contrary, they clearly wanted the federal government to stay out of religion.

Atheists believe in evolution, but if we teach children evolution in public school they will believe that they should act like animals.

Even if this were the case, we cannot decide whether or not something is true based on what the social impact of its being true would be.

Evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics.

No, it doesn’t.

The universe is so complex that someone must have designed it.

There is no law of physics or logic that says that anything complex must have been designed.

Everything in nature shows obvious signs of design.

People often mistake natural things for designed things. The “canals” on Mars, for example.

Evolution’s only a theory.

Pretty much everything in science is considered to be a theory — even things which have been as thoroughly proven as evolution.

How can you not believe in Jesus Christ when the evidence is overwhelming?

I don’t find the evidence even close to overwhelming.

There’s proof that God exists, like the Bible and miracles.

I don’t see anything in the Bible that proves God’s existence, and I have yet to see a convincing miracle.

My parents raised me to believe in God. Are you calling my parents liars?

No, but I think they’re mistaken.

There are so many wonderful things in the world, how can you say there is no God?

Wonderful things don’t need God’s help to exist.

There is so much beauty in the world that only God could have created it.

Or we could have evolved to consider our surroundings beautiful.

If there is no Heaven, then where do you go when you die?

To the same place you were before you were born.

You don’t know everything.

That’s true. I don’t pretend to.

You can’t see air, but you believe in it.

That’s because there is evidence that air exists.

You can’t see love, but you believe in it.

I can personally experience love.

You call yourself an atheist but you have faith. Everyone has faith in something.

Atheists try to have faith in as few things as possible, and blind faith in nothing at all.

061_atheist-faq2.pdf

If you cease to exist when you die, why bother trying to accomplish anything?

I only get one life, so I want to make the most of it.

How can there be absolute moral truths without God?

Some moral truths are logically required. Many others — like murder being immoral — have definitions that aren’t universally agreed upon.

Do you disbelieve in God so that you can enjoy a sinful life without guilt?

I don’t lead an immoral life.

Do you disbelieve in God because of something bad that happened when you were a child?

No. Do you believe in God for that kind of reason?

Why is there something instead of nothing?

Why not?

If every effect has a cause, what caused the universe?

We don’t yet know enough about how the universe works to answer that question. There are many possibilities, though.

How did life on Earth begin?

We don’t yet know for sure. There are many possibilities currently being investigated.

Do you think that science has all the answers?

Science can’t answer questions outside its realm. E.g., morality can’t be investigated scientifically.

If God doesn’t exist, how were math and logic created?

Math and logic are features of reality that humanity has discovered. Any imaginable working universe has them. They weren’t created.

How can you say the Bible isn’t true when it is correct about so many things?

A historical document may be correct about some things and incorrect about others. Many historical records have this property, particularly when they concern religion or mythology.

How can you not believe the Bible when it is filled with prophecies that came true?

Biblical prophecies are generally vague, made after the fact, or not even really prophecies.

If the Bible isn’t true, why did the apostles die to support its lies?

Someone can whole-heartedly believe something even if it’s completely false.

Don’t near-death experiences prove that there is an afterlife?

No. These experiences are easily explained by science.

Do you celebrate Christmas?

Some atheists celebrate Christmas secularly.

What would you say to a dying child?

I would attempt to comfort a dying child, but I wouldn’t offer it false hopes of life after death.

What would convince you that God exists?

An unassailable logical proof of God’s existence, a state of affairs for which God is obviously the only possible solution, or personal revelation, directly from God.

060_quick-answers.pdf

The Bible says that atheism is wrong.

I don’t agree with the Bible.

If you don’t believe in God, you’ll go to Hell!

I doubt that.

You’re only saying you’re an atheist to rebel against authority.

No, I’m not.

You’re angry at God.

I don’t even believe God exists.

Deep down you really believe in God.

No, I don’t.

Atheists are Satanic.

I don’t believe that Satan exists, either.

There are no atheists in foxholes.

Even if that were true, I don’t base my world view on how people think in times of incredible stress.

God is perfect, and He couldn’t be perfect if He didn’t exist, which proves that He exists.

You could “prove” that Superman exists the same way.

If you believe in God and are wrong, then it’s no big deal, but if you don’t believe and are wrong, you’ll be punished eternally, so it’s risky to be an atheist.

I can’t choose to believe or not believe. I have to be convinced.

People who follow Jesus are good, so you should follow Jesus.

That a certain belief leads to good behavior doesn’t prove that the belief is true.

There were eye witnesses that Jesus worked miracles.

Second-hand reports from long after an event are not sufficient evidence for a miracle.

Most people who know about Jesus believe in Him.

Even if that’s true, the popularity of a belief isn’t evidence that the belief is true.

Jesus was either a liar, crazy, or God. He spoke against liars, and didn’t act crazy, so the only remaining possibility is that he is God.

There are other possibilities. For example, Jesus could have been misunderstood, misremembered, or misrepresented.

I know from personal experience that God exists.

Okay, but that does nothing to convince me.

You should open your heart to Jesus.

Do you mean I should stop thinking about Jesus rationally?

God wants you to believe in him without rational proof.

Why would God give me the ability to reason but not want me to use it? And if more than one religion wants me to follow it unquestioningly, how do I choose between them without using reason?

You say you don’t believe that God exists, but the word “God” is meaningless if there is no such thing, so you are admitting that God exists even as you deny his existence.

We often talk about things that don’t exist. Unicorns, for example.

Hitler was an atheist.

Actually, he spoke about God quite often.

059_atheist-faq.pdf

What is atheism?

A lack of belief in deities?

How can you prove that God doesn’t exist?

I don’t need to. You need to prove God’s existence to me.

Isn’t that agnosticism?

Agnostics believe that proofs for or against God’s existence are impossible. Not all atheists are agnostics.

What if you are wrong?

If I find out I’m wrong, I’ll change my mind.

Isn’t atheism depressing?

No. Why would it be?

How can you have hope without God?

Hope can be based on things other than the existence of supernatural beings.

How can there be justice without God?

Often there can’t. Justice isn’t guaranteed.

Why do you reject the church?

I only “reject” the church in the same sense I reject anything I think is incorrect. It’s not personal.

How can you believe everything comes from nothing?

I don’t.

Without God, why be moral?

It makes logical sense to be moral.

How do you know right from wrong?

By following a well-thought-out moral system.

How can there be free will without a soul?

The brain is so complex, that it just seems like we have free will.

If life is meaningless, why care about anything?

I wouldn’t say that life is meaningless.

Who gives life meaning if not God?

We give our own lives meaning.

If people are just machines, why hold us responsible for our actions?

We hold machines responsible for their actions. Broken machines are replaced, repaired, upgraded, etc.

How are humans any different from animals?

We have the ability to consider our own behavior.

Why should we treat humans as more valuable than animals?

Because we’re humans.

Do you think all religious people are stupid?

No.

How can all reports of miracles be false?

There are many ways for inaccurate stories to spread.

Isn’t it obvious that the world is designed?

No.

What about all the millions of people whose lives have been improved by religion?

Something doesn’t have to be true to make a positive difference in someone’s life.

Do atheists think Jesus was a real person?

Some do; some don’t.

What if you found out the Gospels were completely true?

I’d change my opinion about the Gospels.

058_believe-in-supernatural.pdf

A moral atheist uses reason to conclude that it is likely that no deities exist. But does this imply that nothing supernatural exists? Can a moral atheist believe in things that are not deities but are also not part of nature?

The big question here is how one would have any knowledge of a supernatural thing — reincarnation, fate, the soul, etc. — if it was not part of nature. Is it a gut feeling? A philosophical deduction? Something else? Whatever the evidence is, why does it act as proof that the supernatural exists without also possibly acting as proof that a deity exists?

But odds are that if a moral atheist believes in something seemingly supernatural, it’s not because of mere feeling or philosophy, but because there is some kind of more tangible evidence — an inexplicable psychic feat, ghost sighting, etc., The problem is that as soon as you start talking about evidence, you’re talking about something that can be scientifically tested, and when you talk about scientific testing of strange things, you’re not talking about the supernatural, you’re talking about the paranormal.

Something paranormal is apparently inexplicable by our current knowledge of science, but it’s still part of the natural universe. If such a thing is investigated scientifically, it will eventually be understood and no longer classified as paranormal.

For example, there was a time when a hot rock falling out of the sky might have been considered a paranormal occurrence. But today, we understand that rocks in space may occasionally enter Earth’s atmosphere, and we consider that part of science.

Similarly, if it was found that a certain group of people could predict coin flips with statistically significant accuracy, we would consider these people to have a paranormal ability. With further study, we would likely discover the mechanism for this ability and it would no longer be considered paranormal — simply rare but explainable.

There is nothing wrong with a moral atheist believing in something paranormal, so long as the atheist is being consistent in terms of how much evidence is required for something to be considered likely.

For example, if the atheist thinks that three eyewitness account are sufficient evidence that the ghost of a Victorian woman still lives in what was her house, the atheist must consider carefully what three eyewitness accounts of visions of Jesus imply.

You will find that, in practice, moral atheists are not accepting of the supernatural, paranormal, or other extraordinarily hard-to-evidence beliefs. This is to be expected, since their entire philosophy has its roots in skepticism. But this does not mean than an atheist can’t be convinced by sufficient evidence. Being intellectually rigorous means always being willing to change your mind in the face of proof that what you believe is wrong.