This is a vastly varied field as personal experience is by definition personal and there are billions of theists in the world, and throughout history.
Basically it revolves around claims about miracles and feeling the presence of god. This is one of the poorest arguments anyone can present to an atheist, especially if the claims about a miracle are simply hearsay (e.g.: "my sister got healed when we laid on hands and prayed to Jesus").
Conversely if you could demonstrate a miracle to an atheist, empirically, then it might be the strongest argument you could present, but then it would not be an argument from personal experience anymore as it would have independant confirmation external to personal testimony.
So what is the problem with it? Well no one, including theists, would accept such unreliable testimony, if the tables were turned on them. No one would accept a tale by someone about something outragously improbable without some proof to back it up, unless you already accept the premises beforehand.
So for instance if you believed in ghosts, then you might believe someone telling tales of ghosts, but if you did not believe in ghosts, a tale about them would not convince you they exist.
If a hindu tells a christian that Vishnu revealed himself and healed their sister the christian would not believe them based purely on a unsubstantiated story, but if a fellow church member says Jesus did the same thing, then they might, unless it contradicted something doctrinal. Likewise if a Christian tells a Muslim that Jesus appeared and told them he was indeed the son of God, rather than a prophet of God, the muslim would consider the Christian either lying or deluded. This is because personal testimony is the weakest form of evidence you can provide, its highly subjective and easily contaminated by prejudice.
Now what if it is a 'confirmed' miracle of your faith, from history. Does that make a difference?
Well not to someone not already a believer, because the miracles often 'confirmed' by religious authorities are highly dubious in their intent and purpose for validating the miracles. For instance the Catholic Church manufactured relics when it suited them, fabricated or accepted with little if any evidence miracle claims in the past when it suited them and nowadays, thanks to science, rarely if ever proposes any miracle might be authentic because they know it may be debunked if looked at closely by independant sources. The shroud of Turin is one glaring example of fraud and pussyfooting of the Church.
The holy books have claims of miracles in them, some witnessed by many people, even supposedly non-believers, does that make a better case?
The answer again is no. These are unverifiable 'proofs' written in the same book as the claims of miracles and the witnesses (of whatever type) are simply recorded as being witnesses, but there is no way to know what actually happened as there is no way to verify the statements. In many of the cases, no names are even mentioned, only numbers of anonymous 'witnesses'.
No theist would accept any of these as proof of a different religion being true over their own by itself.
If a theist will not accept such 'proofs' even when they already accept a truck load of supernatural beliefs, then why should an atheist that shares none of those beliefs?
Does that mean no miracle could impress an atheist? Well yes and no. No unsupported miracle will impress anyone not already a believer in that miracle or type of miracle. However if a 'miracle' could be shown to an atheist first hand, rather than a story or hearsay, then that is a different case entirely.
First hand experience is a lot more persuasive than 2nd or 10,000th hand.
However prayer studies have failed in this regard, or been shown to be badly or even dishonestly done, and no miracles have been recognised as valid outside of a religion's own followers unless they ascribe different purposes for the miracle (done by demons to trick you or something like that) by opposing faiths.
For me personally, if I saw limbs being regrown, as I watched, on amputees after someone prayed to only a particular god and no other, that would cause me to be impressed. It would need to be done openly and with proper sceptical double blind methods and repeated in different situations but if that kept occuring, only when one god was prayed to, then that might be enough for me to stop being an atheist. In the future this may NOT be enough as we may medically be able to regrown limbs but for it to spontaneously happen now after a prayer, well that would be, for me, a miracle.
However other 'cures' like healing bones, or curing cancer are often poorly documented and in many cases either misdiagosed in the first place, or had perfectly plausible natural reasons for what happened. I remember reading up on a famous case in Lourdes of a man who had a broken leg spontaneously heal on visiting the shrine, but after a bit of research found out that there was collusion with the doctor, outright lies and mislaid testimony and the leg had healed over 3 years prior to the trip to the shrine (he claimed the old scars was a 2nd miracle, which shows in hindsight the brass balls of the guy).
The claim originally sounds very impressive, the truth is a very different matter, often extremely deceptive and exaggerated.
Wednesday 11 December 2013
Why the Argument from Design fails to impress atheists like me.
One of the most common arguments for any god is the argument from
design, and is used by theists and deists alike, and even some atheists
that believe in intelligent design (Raelians for example, although
saying they are atheistic is stretching the term a bit in my opinion)
Many of these arguments use a variant of the Watchmaker argument or analogy, most famously proposed by William Paley over 200 years ago in his book Natural Theology.
In a simplified form, it goes along the lines of "If someone was walking on a beach and came across a watch (hence the name), you would immediately, on examination, determine it had a designer and did not appear by chance. All the gears would be too precise and purposeful to occur without a mind behind it. It is clearly evident that it was designed and therefore a designer exits."
Some add that if an uneducated savage (rather than just anyone) that came across the watch they would work it it had to have a designer, even if they never saw a watch before. I think this only makes the argument worse, not better as it add extra elements that only clutter it up.
This is a form of telelogical argument that was aimed at showing empirical evidence for God rather than revelation or personal experience, which was more spiritual in origin.
One of the most popular current versions or subsets is the argument from irreducible complexity, brought forth by Dr. Michael Behe, although often misunderstood by theists (and some atheists) in regard to why Behe uses it. More on that later.
As an argument it is certainly more accessible to discuss than faith claims involving direct quotes from a holy book or miracle claims, but is it a sound argument?.
I would say no and there are many reasons why not. First a comment on the watchmaker analogy itself.
Moving on from the watchmaker argument, to the universe at large, theists often mention the constants, like the weak and strong nuclear forces, that if one (remember it has to be ONE) changes then all life we know (again the emphasis is on what life is currently like) would likely not exist.
This is an extremely dishonest slant on the argument, basically playing on probability numbers and the still poorly understood 'constants' of the universe.
There are many faults with this argument too, and the often misapplied false constants like the goldilocks zone the earth is in or the size of the sun, or the orbit of the moon.
Its a bit like say the superbugs in hospitals were designed with love by the scientists that spend billions trying to kill them.
Now before I leave the topic I wish to discuss the idea of irreducible complexity. This is often discussed as if it shows deliberate design as if these organisms had to be created fully designed or they could not exist. This is not exactly what Behe was proposing IMO. He is not actually against evolutionary processes per se (common ancestry for instance), he does not believe in the organisms being poofed into existence in their current form by the word of God. Remember he is a bit more rational than your average frothing creationist. He is an I.D proponant and instead proposes that the organism that has some irreducibly complex feature, is proof of intelligent design, rather than chance. This means he has no problem with the idea that it developed, only that it could not develop by chance and there had to be a set goal in mind (thus a mind behind it). The necessary mutations were therefore made by a mind to set up these functions.
Now I could be wrong, but that is generally what I get when I hear Behe talk about his contribution.
He has an issue with Darwinian progression of undirected natural selection and feels that since these complex features need all their parts to fulfill their current function, they cannot occur in stages by chance.
However his arguments have been torn assunder quite sufficently to consider them largely nothing more than more aguments from ignorance. He offers no evidence for intelligent design except for knocking parts of natural selection. This is the old false dichotomy fallacy, where he sets up two options, misrepresents the one he does not like and knocks it, and declares the other option the winner. Its not only anti-science but outright lazy thinking.
The bacteria flagellum is his trademark example and rebuttals showing how it could have developed in stages has been made. He makes some major mistakes in his general thinking, these are cumulative issues, so it is important that you read ALL of them to understand the issue people have with Behe's line of reasoning.
Finally even if we grant a designer, it only gets you to a form of deism, an impersonal god that made the universe and that was it. For anyone to propose that is the reason they are a member of ANY religion is a serious failure of deductive reasoning.
Many of these arguments use a variant of the Watchmaker argument or analogy, most famously proposed by William Paley over 200 years ago in his book Natural Theology.
In a simplified form, it goes along the lines of "If someone was walking on a beach and came across a watch (hence the name), you would immediately, on examination, determine it had a designer and did not appear by chance. All the gears would be too precise and purposeful to occur without a mind behind it. It is clearly evident that it was designed and therefore a designer exits."
Some add that if an uneducated savage (rather than just anyone) that came across the watch they would work it it had to have a designer, even if they never saw a watch before. I think this only makes the argument worse, not better as it add extra elements that only clutter it up.
This is a form of telelogical argument that was aimed at showing empirical evidence for God rather than revelation or personal experience, which was more spiritual in origin.
One of the most popular current versions or subsets is the argument from irreducible complexity, brought forth by Dr. Michael Behe, although often misunderstood by theists (and some atheists) in regard to why Behe uses it. More on that later.
As an argument it is certainly more accessible to discuss than faith claims involving direct quotes from a holy book or miracle claims, but is it a sound argument?.
I would say no and there are many reasons why not. First a comment on the watchmaker analogy itself.
- It is self defeating. The very act of spotting a watch, as an obviously designed object, on a beach of natural objects, like stones, sand, shells, seaweed, crabs, etc and recognising it as designed, in contrast to the natural world, BECAUSE it contrasts with the natural world, shows why using it to then surmise that the natural world is designed is an example of poorly applied logic. If the savage picked up a stone and on examination, HAD to come to the conclusion it was designed, then they might have had a point, but the only reason the watch stands out is because it is UNnatural. Personally this alone makes me laugh at this analogy as it self refutes its own argument.
- The idea that a 'savage', (or in the timeperiod this argument was written, anyone not a white british gentleman) would have to come to the conclusion that a watch was designed is dubious in intent. IF we remove the 'savage' element for a second, the reason anyone would recognise a watch right off as designed would be because we KNOW they are, we already own them, see them being made, and understand vaguely how they work. Even if someone did not know what a watch was exactly, they would recognise metal working and craftmanship as humans have for thousands of years crafted stuff. Heck even before humans were humans there was some rudimentary crafting of stone knives and blades, so the act of design and purpose is fairly easy to recognise when facing something really alien to a natural environment (hard metal with lots of internal metal gears and clasps and dials and numbers). If they found a soft green rubber ball, no less designed than a watch, they might not realise it was designed as it might contain enough similarites with natural items to be assumed as a soft rock or animal. So basically this is nothing more than an carefully crafted (or designed) assertion of what they would like to happen, using, for the timeperiod in question (early 18th Century) one of the most sophisticated technologies available to really appeal to the populace and 'common sense'.
Moving on from the watchmaker argument, to the universe at large, theists often mention the constants, like the weak and strong nuclear forces, that if one (remember it has to be ONE) changes then all life we know (again the emphasis is on what life is currently like) would likely not exist.
This is an extremely dishonest slant on the argument, basically playing on probability numbers and the still poorly understood 'constants' of the universe.
There are many faults with this argument too, and the often misapplied false constants like the goldilocks zone the earth is in or the size of the sun, or the orbit of the moon.
- Lets get the false constants out of the way first, they are often used in place of the actual constants, as theists often don't understand the 'real' ones but can grasp the easier idea of the earth being in a 'perfect' place for life or the moon being in the perfect orbit to help life exist and protect the planet from asteroids. None of these are constants, they change, have changed and will change. These are not the constants scientists discuss and to use them is to make one seem foolish. As far as each individual 'false' constant is concerned, while some do 'help' life exist, there are rebuttals to why they do not show design too. For instance the earth does get hit by meteors, as there have been multiple extinction events all throughout earth's history. Not exactly well designed if the moon and jupiter were 'designed' as a shield. Life hung on by the skin of its teeth (even before teeth evolved).
- The constants that are actually accepted as constant are the way they are for reasons no one yet understands. Therefore using them as 'proof' of design is simply an argument from ignorance, as they are largely a mystery. A universe may settle into a state of set laws as it develops, and these 'constants' became constant after a while, they may be interdependant on each other, and therefore a change in one would affect others so that you cannot change JUST one and leave it at that. What would happen if many of these constants were slightly different, would they produce a different but still life supporting universe? It is possible. Yet apologetics don't want to hear that, they focus on changing ONE and how disasterous that would be to us, as if they knew what would happen in reality instead of just guessing.
- The idea of the multiverse, that all possible outcomes do exist somewhere, and our constants happen to be the way they are here, and we are only aware of them because we exist in that kind of universe is one valid, if somewhat circular, response. It is often referred to as the antropic principle. Basically we only know the universe is the way it is, because we would not exist in a universe if it was different. This is a bit unsatisfying and I am not a huge supporter of the multiverse theories until I see more evidence than I have so far. I don't oppose the idea of multiverses at all, if they exist, fair enough, but the math is beyond me to be frank and I find some of the reasoning for them more wishful thinking than actual fact.
Its a bit like say the superbugs in hospitals were designed with love by the scientists that spend billions trying to kill them.
Now before I leave the topic I wish to discuss the idea of irreducible complexity. This is often discussed as if it shows deliberate design as if these organisms had to be created fully designed or they could not exist. This is not exactly what Behe was proposing IMO. He is not actually against evolutionary processes per se (common ancestry for instance), he does not believe in the organisms being poofed into existence in their current form by the word of God. Remember he is a bit more rational than your average frothing creationist. He is an I.D proponant and instead proposes that the organism that has some irreducibly complex feature, is proof of intelligent design, rather than chance. This means he has no problem with the idea that it developed, only that it could not develop by chance and there had to be a set goal in mind (thus a mind behind it). The necessary mutations were therefore made by a mind to set up these functions.
Now I could be wrong, but that is generally what I get when I hear Behe talk about his contribution.
He has an issue with Darwinian progression of undirected natural selection and feels that since these complex features need all their parts to fulfill their current function, they cannot occur in stages by chance.
However his arguments have been torn assunder quite sufficently to consider them largely nothing more than more aguments from ignorance. He offers no evidence for intelligent design except for knocking parts of natural selection. This is the old false dichotomy fallacy, where he sets up two options, misrepresents the one he does not like and knocks it, and declares the other option the winner. Its not only anti-science but outright lazy thinking.
The bacteria flagellum is his trademark example and rebuttals showing how it could have developed in stages has been made. He makes some major mistakes in his general thinking, these are cumulative issues, so it is important that you read ALL of them to understand the issue people have with Behe's line of reasoning.
- That the current function was always the function or a required function of that organism in the ancestorial past. It has been shown that organs and other structures can change, and even absorb or co-op other functions through a species evolutionary history. Evolution is not a ladder of progress towards a set goal.
- That all the elements needed for the current function have to be optimal, this is also shown as unnecessary. Organisms do not need to have perfect functions, only slightly better functions than their competition (if it aids in their propogation). This can result in refinement, or it can be a bridge to a merged or different function later on when another mutation / change of circumstances opens a pathway to a different line of evolutionary adaptation. The development of lungs for instance or the movement of cetain bones from the jaws of reptiles to mammalian inner ears shows that functions change or co-op already present features for new purposes.
- That any part cannot be removed without the whole function failing. Using 1 and 2, this is no longer a valid argument as no one says that evolution has to follow that line of thinking. It's a strawman of evolution. An organism can develop and find benefits to parts of a future structure on their own, with their own, perhaps radically different, purposes before a mutation or series of mutations and circumstances compiled these together into what we see now. Behe somewhat accepts this while at the same time ignoring it and saying that because it's improbable (in his opinion) that they occur via indirect evolution they point towards a designer. However if it CAN happen, that there are indirect routes to irreducibly complex features, then how can pointing to it be evidence for design? All Behe really has is an argument from incredulity, in so far as he cannot believe it occured by natural selection and blind mutations alone so he proposes it must be caused by a designer.
Finally even if we grant a designer, it only gets you to a form of deism, an impersonal god that made the universe and that was it. For anyone to propose that is the reason they are a member of ANY religion is a serious failure of deductive reasoning.
Wednesday 31 July 2013
Defining Atheism
When I look back at my first encounters with definitions of atheism I am astounded at how difficult it is to get across the basic concept of what atheism is. Theists have managed to muddy the waters to a degree that even actual young atheists are confused by it. Yet it is actually very very simple in principle.
I think one reason why some apologetics distort it's meaning is because only a distorted view of the stance is really something that is hard to defend.
So what is atheism from the point of MOST atheists, including the major thinkers like Hitchens, Dennett, Dawkins and Harris.
It's a lack of belief in god or gods. That really is the broadest brush on the topic.
However there are subsets of atheistic views that can be held by particular atheists and those views can include disbelief in gods, rejection of claims about gods, belief in no gods and even the old and often misapplied belief that no gods exist.
Lets look at how 'atheism' is constructed to fully grasp my point. Theism existed as a stance and from it atheism was coined. Now once it was coined (put in use) it can be applied retrospectively to cover people that lived BEFORE theism, but it is not its OWN label, but a reaction TO theism.
So lets break it down. 'THEOS' means god. That is usually accepted. 'ISM' refers to a belief.
So THEISM means Belief in a god or gods. Nowadays it might be more accurate to stick 'personal' into that to distinguish between theism and deism but that is beside the point for the moment.
Ok, now add the 'A' which is best explained as 'without'. So A-THEISM means 'without' belief in a god or gods.
This does not mean that atheism means belief that NO GOD exists. This is a distortion of how the word was developed as it ignores the history behind why it exists.
Now in practical terms what does all that MEAN? Well from my perspective it means we don't believe the claims made by theists that propose they know a god exists and they have some knowledge about what it wants. You might note that I solely focus on the CLAIMS about god, not the actual question of whether a god actually exists.
A good analogy might be if someone (John for argument sake) disbelieves in alien abductions when he hears his neighbour (Peter) claim he sees them when he is blind drunk walking back from the pub. Does that mean that John knows aliens don't exist or that they cannot have visited earth to do some nasty abductions? No. But the claim by Peter is so poorly supported that you doubt his veracity and credibility and so you put the thought of alien abductions out of your head and live your life as if it was never a consideration. If Peter came back with verifiable proof that he got from the aliens, (see N.D. Tyson's amusing talk on what to do if abducted by aliens) then John would reconsider and re-evaluate whether the NEW evidence is enough to sway him on the matter.
Why is there so many different definitions for atheism if its simply a lack of belief in gods?
Again this is often a simple misunderstanding. Atheism is the lack of belief in theistic claims, but there are many avenues that an atheist can approach that situation.
For instance there is often comments about babies being atheistic, but how can they be atheistic if they had not the ability to reject theistic claims. Well because the definition at its broadest is a LACK of belief and babies certainly qualify for that level of atheism. This is referred to as implicit atheism
Explicit atheism is when someone is aware of theistic arguments and rejects or disbelieves them.
This covers almost every atheists anyone is likely to meet and is generally how most atheists discuss atheism. But to be fair, BOTH stances are atheistic, just the approach is different.
Does any atheist say they know there is no gods?
I hear that a lot from theists, but there is often a rather selective hearing issue involved. It is possible to say "I believe God does not exist" and not mean any possible definition of god, especially vague nonreligious ones. In many cultures an atheist may simply assume you mean the abrahamic God (capital letter intended) and that is what he or she is referring to. Most theists of that presuasion only think about that God anyway so there is justification in answering like that. However some people take that and run with it as if all atheists MUST know somehow 100% that nowhere in the universe and beyond some form of higher intelligence could not exist or they are not atheists. This is of course simply a strawman view and I have never met any atheist that thinks such a view is even rational.
Even the most famous atheist on the planet, Richard Dawkins, repeatedly refutes this flawed view over and over again.
Atheism vs Agnosticism: Is there any link?
Frankly I find this truly amazingly misunderstood by all three 'sides' (those that call themselves atheist, those that call themselves agnostic and those that call themselves theists).
Huxley was the man responsible for coining Agnosticism and it was to cover the question of whether it was possible to know if god (no capital letter) can be verified empirically existing or not. If not, then you remain 'agnostic' or undecided about it.
However this has NOTHING to do with theism or atheism which address claims ABOUT god not whether god actually exists objectively.
Every agnostic still has to either accept or reject any theistic claim on its own merit. Even if you don't explicited reject it if you DON'T accept it you have rejected it in any practical sense.
So its possible to be both agnostic AND atheistic or theistic as they cover two different questions.
Nowadays many theists and atheists accept the following groupings.
gnostic theist = someone who knows that god exists and believes in that god.
agnostic theist = someone who does not know that god exists but believes that he might exist.
agnostic atheist = someone who does not know that god does NOT exist but disbelieves claims that he does.
gnostic atheist = someone who does know that god does NOT exist and disbelieves claims that he does.
Its perfectly acceptable to be a gnostic atheist about SOME gods (Zeus or Horus or Allah or Jesus) while being an agnostic towards poorly defined possible gods. After all it would be irrational to expect someone to have only ONE view on every possible god.
I think one reason why some apologetics distort it's meaning is because only a distorted view of the stance is really something that is hard to defend.
So what is atheism from the point of MOST atheists, including the major thinkers like Hitchens, Dennett, Dawkins and Harris.
It's a lack of belief in god or gods. That really is the broadest brush on the topic.
However there are subsets of atheistic views that can be held by particular atheists and those views can include disbelief in gods, rejection of claims about gods, belief in no gods and even the old and often misapplied belief that no gods exist.
Lets look at how 'atheism' is constructed to fully grasp my point. Theism existed as a stance and from it atheism was coined. Now once it was coined (put in use) it can be applied retrospectively to cover people that lived BEFORE theism, but it is not its OWN label, but a reaction TO theism.
So lets break it down. 'THEOS' means god. That is usually accepted. 'ISM' refers to a belief.
So THEISM means Belief in a god or gods. Nowadays it might be more accurate to stick 'personal' into that to distinguish between theism and deism but that is beside the point for the moment.
Ok, now add the 'A' which is best explained as 'without'. So A-THEISM means 'without' belief in a god or gods.
This does not mean that atheism means belief that NO GOD exists. This is a distortion of how the word was developed as it ignores the history behind why it exists.
Now in practical terms what does all that MEAN? Well from my perspective it means we don't believe the claims made by theists that propose they know a god exists and they have some knowledge about what it wants. You might note that I solely focus on the CLAIMS about god, not the actual question of whether a god actually exists.
A good analogy might be if someone (John for argument sake) disbelieves in alien abductions when he hears his neighbour (Peter) claim he sees them when he is blind drunk walking back from the pub. Does that mean that John knows aliens don't exist or that they cannot have visited earth to do some nasty abductions? No. But the claim by Peter is so poorly supported that you doubt his veracity and credibility and so you put the thought of alien abductions out of your head and live your life as if it was never a consideration. If Peter came back with verifiable proof that he got from the aliens, (see N.D. Tyson's amusing talk on what to do if abducted by aliens) then John would reconsider and re-evaluate whether the NEW evidence is enough to sway him on the matter.
Why is there so many different definitions for atheism if its simply a lack of belief in gods?
Again this is often a simple misunderstanding. Atheism is the lack of belief in theistic claims, but there are many avenues that an atheist can approach that situation.
For instance there is often comments about babies being atheistic, but how can they be atheistic if they had not the ability to reject theistic claims. Well because the definition at its broadest is a LACK of belief and babies certainly qualify for that level of atheism. This is referred to as implicit atheism
Explicit atheism is when someone is aware of theistic arguments and rejects or disbelieves them.
This covers almost every atheists anyone is likely to meet and is generally how most atheists discuss atheism. But to be fair, BOTH stances are atheistic, just the approach is different.
Does any atheist say they know there is no gods?
I hear that a lot from theists, but there is often a rather selective hearing issue involved. It is possible to say "I believe God does not exist" and not mean any possible definition of god, especially vague nonreligious ones. In many cultures an atheist may simply assume you mean the abrahamic God (capital letter intended) and that is what he or she is referring to. Most theists of that presuasion only think about that God anyway so there is justification in answering like that. However some people take that and run with it as if all atheists MUST know somehow 100% that nowhere in the universe and beyond some form of higher intelligence could not exist or they are not atheists. This is of course simply a strawman view and I have never met any atheist that thinks such a view is even rational.
Even the most famous atheist on the planet, Richard Dawkins, repeatedly refutes this flawed view over and over again.
Atheism vs Agnosticism: Is there any link?
Frankly I find this truly amazingly misunderstood by all three 'sides' (those that call themselves atheist, those that call themselves agnostic and those that call themselves theists).
Huxley was the man responsible for coining Agnosticism and it was to cover the question of whether it was possible to know if god (no capital letter) can be verified empirically existing or not. If not, then you remain 'agnostic' or undecided about it.
However this has NOTHING to do with theism or atheism which address claims ABOUT god not whether god actually exists objectively.
Every agnostic still has to either accept or reject any theistic claim on its own merit. Even if you don't explicited reject it if you DON'T accept it you have rejected it in any practical sense.
So its possible to be both agnostic AND atheistic or theistic as they cover two different questions.
Nowadays many theists and atheists accept the following groupings.
gnostic theist = someone who knows that god exists and believes in that god.
agnostic theist = someone who does not know that god exists but believes that he might exist.
agnostic atheist = someone who does not know that god does NOT exist but disbelieves claims that he does.
gnostic atheist = someone who does know that god does NOT exist and disbelieves claims that he does.
Its perfectly acceptable to be a gnostic atheist about SOME gods (Zeus or Horus or Allah or Jesus) while being an agnostic towards poorly defined possible gods. After all it would be irrational to expect someone to have only ONE view on every possible god.
The Moral Argument and how theists fail with it.
Of all the arguments for theism and attempts to prove a god exists, usually assuming it's their chosen favourite, the Moral Argument is probably the most powerful. I say powerful not convincing for several reasons. But first lets be fair and give a rundown of what that argument entails.
The arguement often put forward entails what is called 'objective' morality existing. This presupposes god existing automatically to justify what the theist is aiming for when he defines objective.
Basically it runs like this:
If objective morality exists, then it exists externally to mankind. Morality requires a mind to formulate and understand what is right and wrong and if it transcends all of man, then it must be a mind external and greater than mankind. This mind can only be God.
Since objective morality exists, then God exists. QED.
Some go further and say that their God is the personification of Morality itself, the source not only in revelation but in essense. God cannot be immoral or he would not be God. Being moral IS part of God's nature.
This is basically how it is commonly argued by apologetics like William Lane Craig or John Lennox.
They then say that atheists cannot have objective morals without God, and if they say they do have such morals they are either lying, inconsistant with atheism, or too ignorant to know what they are talking about. Such apologetics usually claim then that total subjective relativism on moral issues must be how atheists think to truly be atheistic.
They usually throw in a cavaet that they are not saying atheists cannot be moral but that they cannot justify being so if they are atheistic as they have no basis for it.
Often they also throw in social darwinism into the mix and even attempt to bring up Hitler or raping babies too.
Now for my response:
This has a vast amount of problems with it and has been discussed by philosophers for centuries, and like many theistic arguments, never really dies because its so complex while seeming simple and obvious, that most people struggle and handle it badly. I hope to give at least a solid attempt to deconstruct it.
First off, lets look at the icing on the cake comments about raping babies or Hitler and Nazi Germany. These are simply emotional assaults to put their opponent off guard and poison the well for rebuttals. Many atheists stumble a bit in sheer horror and outrage at these comments and certainly in a debate such comments are hard to ignore.
1. Social Darwinism has nothing to do with Atheism or Darwinian Evolution. So its a red herring. We can discuss that in another post.
2. The idea that if the the Nazi's won the war then it would be seen as subjectively ok to exterminate the jews because 'everyone' would see it the way Hitler did is wrong on many levels. One it is a simplistic view of a hypothetical outcome that ignores any factor outside of Hitler and some Nazi members thinking it was ok to murder Jews. Even if that happened the outcome presented is unrealistic and likely false. But even so it cannot be seen as subjectively 'right' because the JEWS would have disagreed. Its similar to the concept that if everyone thought that raping a woman was ok would it be ok to rape a woman. No, because the definition of rape means the woman objects, regardless of how many OTHER people think it was ok.
Its a strawman argument.
Now that we have dismissed the little adhomim attacks and emotional sabotage lets really look at whats left.
1. There is an equivocational fallacy here for the term objective. It is defined to retrofit a preconcieved conclusion and ONLY that narrow definition is allowed in the theist mind.
So what can 'objective' truly mean? Well it can mean any form of morality not dependant on a single individual or group or state of humans' personal whims. It can be hypothecially a course of moral decisions in potentia that leads to the most beneficial outcome.
Well can such concepts exist in an atheist's worldview? Well yes, if defined in such manners and not limited to the narrow and misleading theist definition of objective that requires a mind.
Many scientists do propose a mix of genetic and social contract obligations that transcend the individual or any group, and in some cases even the current species.
These ALL are objective yet not rigid and change as we evolve as a species and as a society, that can superseed personal agendas or political agendas. These impulses and reasoning exist regardless of personal choices so if understood and adhered to, or avoided, can be a form of objective morality.
Sam Harris has some excellent points about the landscape of morality and I think he is onto something.
2. Its a false dichotomy presented. Theists have presupposed that their objective morality already exists and the ONLY alternative to it is total subjective morality where every individual is justified in deciding for themselves what is right and what is wrong and no one has any right to criticise anyone else. This of course is a very black and white view and is meant to force opinion into the theists favour. Who in their right mind would advocate for total relativism. Law and Order would break down. But there are, as discussed in No. 1 point, far more options than what is presented and so this is also a failure. They have to show that NO other option is available than the 2 offered.
They use deeply emotional statements about Hitler to obscure this and provoke an emotional outburst from their viewers and the opponent.
3. Now for the really sneaky part that is often something theists like to railroad over in any debate.
Is their objective morality actually objective if taken seriously and is it even morality at all.
This is often missed as atheists can be so busy defending not supporting total relativism that they forget that the whole argument is a smokescreen or a paper tiger.
So is it truly objective if a God makes the rules for what is right and wrong. Instead is it merely handing responsibility over to something external and not growing up and handling it ourselves? In some ways you could justify doing something similar if advanced aliens arrived on the planet. Is that truly objective or merely subjective to the alien or God and objective to humans. This is simply similar to a dictatorship where all power is given to one individual because he is seen as being better than anyone else for some reason. Certainly the bible shows that faith in God to be 'better' at being moral is questionable at best and suicidal at worst.
Is it even Morality in a secular viewpoint. Theists may use the words, but morality also requires responsibility for our actions and if that is taken out of our hands and given over to a third party, that is merely obeying divine mandate. Good is whatever a god says is good. Again the bible certainly seems to indicate that God considers murder, genocide, infantcide and rape 'good' if it suits his purpose and I have heard apologetics like William Lane Craig defend such actions AS GOOD as long as God commands it.
That should send a shiver down anyone's spine.
Now the extra bit I mentioned in green about Morality being God's nature is meant to counter this criticism of divine mandate. However it is simply an assumption without ANY basis in fact and can be dismissed in the same manner. The Bible clearly shows that God does ask some truly evil and immoral things to be done, so saying he is incapable of commiting an immoral act is playing a shell game with what morality means and involves circular reasoning (morality is what god is so therefore anything he does is moral by definition so immorality is impossible for him, but that means ANYTHING is permissible because it is MORAL because god did it.)
4. This is perhaps the most obvious of all but can be a case of not seeing the forest for the trees.
IF no god exists, or at least not a personal god that reveals itself to mankind then the version of objective morality proposed is nonsense and all the rules given by priests over the centuries from the thousands of religions were not objective but subjective to their own considerations. Indeed this is supported by the very fact that there are thousands of religions and they all have various and often conflicting 'objective' morality. Only the most primal laws have any commonality in many cultures, things like not killing your own tribe or not stealing from your own tribe are commonplace and it does not take much intelligence to see why any society might work those laws out for themselves without needing 'objective' guidence from a third party.
Even looking at the ten commandments there are multiple versions and protestants and catholics disagree on one of them. 4 of them are not even really morals at all but demands for submission and obediance to that god and one of them is not possible to fulfill (covet) and results in everyone failing and requiring forgiveness for an unavoidable thought crime.
5. Even if a god did exist, and objective morality exists and he was the source of it, even granting all that, theists still are no further than deism really. They have to prove that they have an avenue of FINDING these objective morals out from that God. What they have done of course is work backwards and hope that each point is cumulative, but the problem is that EACH point that builds from deism to a particular denomination of christianity has to be rock solid or ALL the points fail.
Only if a path of knowledge from a God is proven can it be known if objective morality truly exists otherwise its just an assumption.
Since all religions fail in their efforts to show that their 'objective' god exists, then there is no reason to consider their version of objective morality as anything more than wishful thinking.
Well those are my thoughts on the Moral Argument as commonly presented. I do not claim that my response deals with EVERY possible version of it, only those that I hear over and over again from well know apologetics.
The arguement often put forward entails what is called 'objective' morality existing. This presupposes god existing automatically to justify what the theist is aiming for when he defines objective.
Basically it runs like this:
If objective morality exists, then it exists externally to mankind. Morality requires a mind to formulate and understand what is right and wrong and if it transcends all of man, then it must be a mind external and greater than mankind. This mind can only be God.
Since objective morality exists, then God exists. QED.
Some go further and say that their God is the personification of Morality itself, the source not only in revelation but in essense. God cannot be immoral or he would not be God. Being moral IS part of God's nature.
This is basically how it is commonly argued by apologetics like William Lane Craig or John Lennox.
They then say that atheists cannot have objective morals without God, and if they say they do have such morals they are either lying, inconsistant with atheism, or too ignorant to know what they are talking about. Such apologetics usually claim then that total subjective relativism on moral issues must be how atheists think to truly be atheistic.
They usually throw in a cavaet that they are not saying atheists cannot be moral but that they cannot justify being so if they are atheistic as they have no basis for it.
Often they also throw in social darwinism into the mix and even attempt to bring up Hitler or raping babies too.
Now for my response:
This has a vast amount of problems with it and has been discussed by philosophers for centuries, and like many theistic arguments, never really dies because its so complex while seeming simple and obvious, that most people struggle and handle it badly. I hope to give at least a solid attempt to deconstruct it.
First off, lets look at the icing on the cake comments about raping babies or Hitler and Nazi Germany. These are simply emotional assaults to put their opponent off guard and poison the well for rebuttals. Many atheists stumble a bit in sheer horror and outrage at these comments and certainly in a debate such comments are hard to ignore.
1. Social Darwinism has nothing to do with Atheism or Darwinian Evolution. So its a red herring. We can discuss that in another post.
2. The idea that if the the Nazi's won the war then it would be seen as subjectively ok to exterminate the jews because 'everyone' would see it the way Hitler did is wrong on many levels. One it is a simplistic view of a hypothetical outcome that ignores any factor outside of Hitler and some Nazi members thinking it was ok to murder Jews. Even if that happened the outcome presented is unrealistic and likely false. But even so it cannot be seen as subjectively 'right' because the JEWS would have disagreed. Its similar to the concept that if everyone thought that raping a woman was ok would it be ok to rape a woman. No, because the definition of rape means the woman objects, regardless of how many OTHER people think it was ok.
Its a strawman argument.
Now that we have dismissed the little adhomim attacks and emotional sabotage lets really look at whats left.
1. There is an equivocational fallacy here for the term objective. It is defined to retrofit a preconcieved conclusion and ONLY that narrow definition is allowed in the theist mind.
So what can 'objective' truly mean? Well it can mean any form of morality not dependant on a single individual or group or state of humans' personal whims. It can be hypothecially a course of moral decisions in potentia that leads to the most beneficial outcome.
Well can such concepts exist in an atheist's worldview? Well yes, if defined in such manners and not limited to the narrow and misleading theist definition of objective that requires a mind.
Many scientists do propose a mix of genetic and social contract obligations that transcend the individual or any group, and in some cases even the current species.
These ALL are objective yet not rigid and change as we evolve as a species and as a society, that can superseed personal agendas or political agendas. These impulses and reasoning exist regardless of personal choices so if understood and adhered to, or avoided, can be a form of objective morality.
Sam Harris has some excellent points about the landscape of morality and I think he is onto something.
2. Its a false dichotomy presented. Theists have presupposed that their objective morality already exists and the ONLY alternative to it is total subjective morality where every individual is justified in deciding for themselves what is right and what is wrong and no one has any right to criticise anyone else. This of course is a very black and white view and is meant to force opinion into the theists favour. Who in their right mind would advocate for total relativism. Law and Order would break down. But there are, as discussed in No. 1 point, far more options than what is presented and so this is also a failure. They have to show that NO other option is available than the 2 offered.
They use deeply emotional statements about Hitler to obscure this and provoke an emotional outburst from their viewers and the opponent.
3. Now for the really sneaky part that is often something theists like to railroad over in any debate.
Is their objective morality actually objective if taken seriously and is it even morality at all.
This is often missed as atheists can be so busy defending not supporting total relativism that they forget that the whole argument is a smokescreen or a paper tiger.
So is it truly objective if a God makes the rules for what is right and wrong. Instead is it merely handing responsibility over to something external and not growing up and handling it ourselves? In some ways you could justify doing something similar if advanced aliens arrived on the planet. Is that truly objective or merely subjective to the alien or God and objective to humans. This is simply similar to a dictatorship where all power is given to one individual because he is seen as being better than anyone else for some reason. Certainly the bible shows that faith in God to be 'better' at being moral is questionable at best and suicidal at worst.
Is it even Morality in a secular viewpoint. Theists may use the words, but morality also requires responsibility for our actions and if that is taken out of our hands and given over to a third party, that is merely obeying divine mandate. Good is whatever a god says is good. Again the bible certainly seems to indicate that God considers murder, genocide, infantcide and rape 'good' if it suits his purpose and I have heard apologetics like William Lane Craig defend such actions AS GOOD as long as God commands it.
That should send a shiver down anyone's spine.
Now the extra bit I mentioned in green about Morality being God's nature is meant to counter this criticism of divine mandate. However it is simply an assumption without ANY basis in fact and can be dismissed in the same manner. The Bible clearly shows that God does ask some truly evil and immoral things to be done, so saying he is incapable of commiting an immoral act is playing a shell game with what morality means and involves circular reasoning (morality is what god is so therefore anything he does is moral by definition so immorality is impossible for him, but that means ANYTHING is permissible because it is MORAL because god did it.)
4. This is perhaps the most obvious of all but can be a case of not seeing the forest for the trees.
IF no god exists, or at least not a personal god that reveals itself to mankind then the version of objective morality proposed is nonsense and all the rules given by priests over the centuries from the thousands of religions were not objective but subjective to their own considerations. Indeed this is supported by the very fact that there are thousands of religions and they all have various and often conflicting 'objective' morality. Only the most primal laws have any commonality in many cultures, things like not killing your own tribe or not stealing from your own tribe are commonplace and it does not take much intelligence to see why any society might work those laws out for themselves without needing 'objective' guidence from a third party.
Even looking at the ten commandments there are multiple versions and protestants and catholics disagree on one of them. 4 of them are not even really morals at all but demands for submission and obediance to that god and one of them is not possible to fulfill (covet) and results in everyone failing and requiring forgiveness for an unavoidable thought crime.
5. Even if a god did exist, and objective morality exists and he was the source of it, even granting all that, theists still are no further than deism really. They have to prove that they have an avenue of FINDING these objective morals out from that God. What they have done of course is work backwards and hope that each point is cumulative, but the problem is that EACH point that builds from deism to a particular denomination of christianity has to be rock solid or ALL the points fail.
Only if a path of knowledge from a God is proven can it be known if objective morality truly exists otherwise its just an assumption.
Since all religions fail in their efforts to show that their 'objective' god exists, then there is no reason to consider their version of objective morality as anything more than wishful thinking.
Well those are my thoughts on the Moral Argument as commonly presented. I do not claim that my response deals with EVERY possible version of it, only those that I hear over and over again from well know apologetics.
Introducing myself
This blog is a kind of diary for my thoughts on issues that interest me, especially in regard to science, philosophy and religion.
My username "amomentofclarity2011" was chosen by myself to represent a sort of secular revelation on my former beliefs about god and religion that occured in January 2011. It was a true 'moment of clarity' as far as I was concerned so that was why I chose it. It was not meant as some form of putdown on anyone else. It simply refers to my experience and a reminder of when it happened.
I lived most of my life in Ireland, a country I do love and I find many Irish people's self-depreciating wit satisfying and familar. However I was raised a christian, and more specifically a catholic. Both my parents are of that faith and while neither were overly pushy towards religion, I was throughly indoctrinated by the culture as were my parents before me. They, like so many, were thought to never question the church and certainly not the doctrine. It was ok to dislike a particular priest but not baby Jesus.
As a child I accepted, with some sceptical questioning, the general theme of religion and did absolutely believe in the abrahamic god. It never dawned on me to EVER question that he existed.
I was given a comic book bible while I was 5 or 6, and had my heroes like Samson and David, and dreamed of what it must have been like waaaay back then in such a foreign land. I of course assumed they spoke modern english and that Jesus was just like in the pictures, a white 30ish man with a nice brown beard and a full head of Richard Branson styled hair.
However there were doubts even then. I did have OTHER books like the Greek myths and I also loved Hercules and was fascinated by the Gorgons and Harpies. I saw how fantastical their stories were and never believed they actually happened. However when I read Genesis I was struck by how similar in outlandishness some of the stories were. They all had characters that had special dealings with the gods or were gods made flesh or had superpowers or fought evil beings.
I began to wonder if perhaps some of the old stories were perhaps not literally true but allegorical (yes I understood that term even as a young child even if I probably never used it).
When I was introduced to science in school, along with history and geology, I certainly found it hard to credit many of the old testament tales, especially Adam and Eve and Noah. These simply could NOT be true if they had any relation to reality at all.
I still believed in miracles and many of the old testament tales, but was more sceptical than before because if this book was inspired by a God, then he seemed to have made the book with a lot of very strange tales that could not be true if taken literally. Why would God need to obscure his messages so?
So I worked on the principle that anything that COULD not be true was not literally meant to be true.
I loved the bible, loved the stories, especially of Moses and Jesus and Joseph. I did not like Abraham because of the attempt to kill his son. I understood it was a test supposedly but such a test was morally wrong regardless of the final result.
I began to feel the bible was not infallible. It was more than just needing interpretation, it needed ignoring completely in parts.
Of course I was innocent as a child and did not grasp many of the consequences of what was said in the stories. I simply assumed it was alright because it was in the bible. Yet even so I objected to Lot's wife being turned into a pillar of salt. I thought that seemed a bit much of a repremand for a fairly mild infraction that harmed noone.
I also objected to the idea that if my friends were not true christian (protestant for instant, remember it's Catholic Ireland), or someone had not heard of Jesus (like the starving ethiopians we saw on TV in the 70's and early 80's), they may go to hell, or at least purgatory. But what horrified me the most was Limbo. I had a vision of a grey mist, endless in all directions and tiny baby heads with tiny wings, much like you see some cherubs being depicted in christian medieval art, foating around with nothing to do, for EVER.
Now of course the church has dumped that completely, but when I was growing up it was as real to us as Heaven or Hell or Purgatory. It was a FACT of our faith. I never accepted that it was a just 'punishment' for being born and dying before baptism. I truly believed it existed, don't misunderstand me, I just did not accept that it was just or fair.
To most of my inquiries my weary and busy parents often resorted to the old "God's ways are not man's ways" or "God has a purpose for everything". But that never answered anything, it just told me that my parents didn't know anything about it either.
I also never understood why Hell needed to exist or what the Devil was supposed to get out of torturing people. The bible clearly showed the Devil to be quite friendly to God, more a sidekick or someone to do something distasteful so God did not have to. Why did he need souls?
Well my mother told me that there was a war in heaven and souls gave power to each side. Whichever side has the most, won. Well that made a kind of sense, although feeling like a powerup to be used in a battle seemed rather dissatisfying. Was that all I was to them? Some kind of currency or food to be used like a commodity. It seemed to cheapen any 'special' purpose for life being created.
It was commonly thought that God was a man in the sky (of sorts) and he watched us and had angels watch us and write down every bad thing we did in a giant book or ledger. Nowadays theologians would call that absurd, at least in public, but that was what we were thought as children.
As I grew older I learned from history and art history the history of the church, the inquisitons, the crusades, the witchburnings, the pograms, the hatred for the jews and the incredible amount of corruption that went on in the Church for over a thousand years. We read about Martin Luther and Protestantism and I had to agree I was on Martin's side for most of his issues.
This certainly helped to separate myself from unquestioning loyalty to the Church. I was still a catholic and a christian and an absolute believer in God and Jesus but I had considered the Church a lost cause.
My 20's saw my gradual drifting away from Catholic faith and more towards a nondenominal faith, especially when I lived in England and came across different denominations. I also encountered other non abrahamic faiths and my view of what God might be changed. I now knew that a God in the clouds was absurd and that he must be much more mysterious and less tangible.
What that actually meant was not something that I had any idea of.
By my 30's I was no longer a Catholic, but I considered myself a christian, but other ideas of god were appealing including Pantheism and Nature personified. Perhaps God was not a 'he' at all, but something much more alien. As I thought through this the bible's stories became less and less relevant and more obviously exaggerated tales. Nothing in history supported Moses and I wondered if anything in the old testament could be trusted.
However I still believed Jesus was at least a wise man, a good man but he was misquoted or mistaken in his alleged claims about being God.
Finally in 2011 I had just completed a government census form and marked myself down as a christian (probably saw myself as a cultural catholic) because it seems that was what I was supposed to do. However as I looked down the list of options I saw 'atheist'. I was baffled. I had heard of many religions including Wicca, but atheism was not something I was familier with. So I looked it up.
At this stage my beliefs had moved to a form of pantheism mixed with deism, a kind of odd unfocused hybrid that I was still trying to make sense of. There HAD to be a god of SOME kind, that was the rule, so all I had to do was find some way to make that god make sense in face of a complete LACK of evidence.
I google 'atheism' and then 'atheists'. I read the descriptions and suddenly had my moment of clarity.
I completely agreed with the definition, I related to it and all the problems trying to justify a god HAVING to exist no matter what, dropped away.
It changed my life. A great weight was metaphorically lifted off my shoulders. Suddenly I knew I could believe that there was a possibility that no gods were responsible and that theists simply made them up. I understood that it was still possible that a form of god still existed but was not interested in revealing itself. But what mattered was that the theists were wrong, not just confusing or contradictory, but flat out wrong. Their gods did not exist, because they had NO way of knowing objectively if they did. It was still a mystery. I later considered that part my agnostic view (that god existing is unknowable).
This started a journey for the last 32+ months of ongoing research as I sought to understand WHY theists believed in gods in the first place. I knew they were not trying to deceive me deliberately, at least not most of them. I also learned a lot more about my former faith, far more on church history, on other faiths and on logic and how to reason. I also studied science and sought answers that had previously been seen as the domain of religion, and found them.
So that is a brief story of my journey, a tiny synopsis of a LOT of thinking and a lot of research.
I can discuss other aspects in more detail in other posts.
My username "amomentofclarity2011" was chosen by myself to represent a sort of secular revelation on my former beliefs about god and religion that occured in January 2011. It was a true 'moment of clarity' as far as I was concerned so that was why I chose it. It was not meant as some form of putdown on anyone else. It simply refers to my experience and a reminder of when it happened.
I lived most of my life in Ireland, a country I do love and I find many Irish people's self-depreciating wit satisfying and familar. However I was raised a christian, and more specifically a catholic. Both my parents are of that faith and while neither were overly pushy towards religion, I was throughly indoctrinated by the culture as were my parents before me. They, like so many, were thought to never question the church and certainly not the doctrine. It was ok to dislike a particular priest but not baby Jesus.
As a child I accepted, with some sceptical questioning, the general theme of religion and did absolutely believe in the abrahamic god. It never dawned on me to EVER question that he existed.
I was given a comic book bible while I was 5 or 6, and had my heroes like Samson and David, and dreamed of what it must have been like waaaay back then in such a foreign land. I of course assumed they spoke modern english and that Jesus was just like in the pictures, a white 30ish man with a nice brown beard and a full head of Richard Branson styled hair.
However there were doubts even then. I did have OTHER books like the Greek myths and I also loved Hercules and was fascinated by the Gorgons and Harpies. I saw how fantastical their stories were and never believed they actually happened. However when I read Genesis I was struck by how similar in outlandishness some of the stories were. They all had characters that had special dealings with the gods or were gods made flesh or had superpowers or fought evil beings.
I began to wonder if perhaps some of the old stories were perhaps not literally true but allegorical (yes I understood that term even as a young child even if I probably never used it).
When I was introduced to science in school, along with history and geology, I certainly found it hard to credit many of the old testament tales, especially Adam and Eve and Noah. These simply could NOT be true if they had any relation to reality at all.
I still believed in miracles and many of the old testament tales, but was more sceptical than before because if this book was inspired by a God, then he seemed to have made the book with a lot of very strange tales that could not be true if taken literally. Why would God need to obscure his messages so?
So I worked on the principle that anything that COULD not be true was not literally meant to be true.
I loved the bible, loved the stories, especially of Moses and Jesus and Joseph. I did not like Abraham because of the attempt to kill his son. I understood it was a test supposedly but such a test was morally wrong regardless of the final result.
I began to feel the bible was not infallible. It was more than just needing interpretation, it needed ignoring completely in parts.
Of course I was innocent as a child and did not grasp many of the consequences of what was said in the stories. I simply assumed it was alright because it was in the bible. Yet even so I objected to Lot's wife being turned into a pillar of salt. I thought that seemed a bit much of a repremand for a fairly mild infraction that harmed noone.
I also objected to the idea that if my friends were not true christian (protestant for instant, remember it's Catholic Ireland), or someone had not heard of Jesus (like the starving ethiopians we saw on TV in the 70's and early 80's), they may go to hell, or at least purgatory. But what horrified me the most was Limbo. I had a vision of a grey mist, endless in all directions and tiny baby heads with tiny wings, much like you see some cherubs being depicted in christian medieval art, foating around with nothing to do, for EVER.
Now of course the church has dumped that completely, but when I was growing up it was as real to us as Heaven or Hell or Purgatory. It was a FACT of our faith. I never accepted that it was a just 'punishment' for being born and dying before baptism. I truly believed it existed, don't misunderstand me, I just did not accept that it was just or fair.
To most of my inquiries my weary and busy parents often resorted to the old "God's ways are not man's ways" or "God has a purpose for everything". But that never answered anything, it just told me that my parents didn't know anything about it either.
I also never understood why Hell needed to exist or what the Devil was supposed to get out of torturing people. The bible clearly showed the Devil to be quite friendly to God, more a sidekick or someone to do something distasteful so God did not have to. Why did he need souls?
Well my mother told me that there was a war in heaven and souls gave power to each side. Whichever side has the most, won. Well that made a kind of sense, although feeling like a powerup to be used in a battle seemed rather dissatisfying. Was that all I was to them? Some kind of currency or food to be used like a commodity. It seemed to cheapen any 'special' purpose for life being created.
It was commonly thought that God was a man in the sky (of sorts) and he watched us and had angels watch us and write down every bad thing we did in a giant book or ledger. Nowadays theologians would call that absurd, at least in public, but that was what we were thought as children.
As I grew older I learned from history and art history the history of the church, the inquisitons, the crusades, the witchburnings, the pograms, the hatred for the jews and the incredible amount of corruption that went on in the Church for over a thousand years. We read about Martin Luther and Protestantism and I had to agree I was on Martin's side for most of his issues.
This certainly helped to separate myself from unquestioning loyalty to the Church. I was still a catholic and a christian and an absolute believer in God and Jesus but I had considered the Church a lost cause.
My 20's saw my gradual drifting away from Catholic faith and more towards a nondenominal faith, especially when I lived in England and came across different denominations. I also encountered other non abrahamic faiths and my view of what God might be changed. I now knew that a God in the clouds was absurd and that he must be much more mysterious and less tangible.
What that actually meant was not something that I had any idea of.
By my 30's I was no longer a Catholic, but I considered myself a christian, but other ideas of god were appealing including Pantheism and Nature personified. Perhaps God was not a 'he' at all, but something much more alien. As I thought through this the bible's stories became less and less relevant and more obviously exaggerated tales. Nothing in history supported Moses and I wondered if anything in the old testament could be trusted.
However I still believed Jesus was at least a wise man, a good man but he was misquoted or mistaken in his alleged claims about being God.
Finally in 2011 I had just completed a government census form and marked myself down as a christian (probably saw myself as a cultural catholic) because it seems that was what I was supposed to do. However as I looked down the list of options I saw 'atheist'. I was baffled. I had heard of many religions including Wicca, but atheism was not something I was familier with. So I looked it up.
At this stage my beliefs had moved to a form of pantheism mixed with deism, a kind of odd unfocused hybrid that I was still trying to make sense of. There HAD to be a god of SOME kind, that was the rule, so all I had to do was find some way to make that god make sense in face of a complete LACK of evidence.
I google 'atheism' and then 'atheists'. I read the descriptions and suddenly had my moment of clarity.
I completely agreed with the definition, I related to it and all the problems trying to justify a god HAVING to exist no matter what, dropped away.
It changed my life. A great weight was metaphorically lifted off my shoulders. Suddenly I knew I could believe that there was a possibility that no gods were responsible and that theists simply made them up. I understood that it was still possible that a form of god still existed but was not interested in revealing itself. But what mattered was that the theists were wrong, not just confusing or contradictory, but flat out wrong. Their gods did not exist, because they had NO way of knowing objectively if they did. It was still a mystery. I later considered that part my agnostic view (that god existing is unknowable).
This started a journey for the last 32+ months of ongoing research as I sought to understand WHY theists believed in gods in the first place. I knew they were not trying to deceive me deliberately, at least not most of them. I also learned a lot more about my former faith, far more on church history, on other faiths and on logic and how to reason. I also studied science and sought answers that had previously been seen as the domain of religion, and found them.
So that is a brief story of my journey, a tiny synopsis of a LOT of thinking and a lot of research.
I can discuss other aspects in more detail in other posts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)