A Dumb Proof for God

Here is Bob Dutko’s “proof” that a creator-god exists.

1)  Either God exists or He doesn’t.

2)  If he doesn’t, then the only thing we’re left with are the Laws of Physics to describe the beginning of the universe.

3)  The Laws of Physics don’t allow for matter to be created from nothing.  That would break the first Law of Thermodynamics.

4)  Therefore, God must exist.

He has a second proof that says why this god is actually the Christian God.  The proof is that in the Bible, Jesus says he is the one true God.  Period.  Apparently no other god was smart enough to proclaim themselves the one true god.

And he really sounds so sincere when he doesn’t understand why atheists don’t get it.  He truly claims that he’s proven God by using SCIENCE and LOGIC, and it’s so simple!

There are two issues I have with his proof.

The first is that I don’t believe anyone’s opinion on physics, biology, astrophysics, geology, etc, except for people who have actually studies and trained in the those fields.  A huge amount of Christian apologists will lay out what sounds like real facts from all those areas of study.  I dismiss them out of hand, and you should too.  At best, they’ll cherry pick data to support their claims (weird radiometric dating instances, for example).  Or worse, they’ll present a falsehood as fact.  In this instance:  The law of conservation of energy, which Bob is referring to, only applies to CLOSED systems.  So it doesn’t apply to the creation of the universe (if, indeed, the universe isn’t eternal and was created).

Now if Bob could demonstrate that matter or energy was actually created or destroyed WITHIN the confines of the universe, then we’d have something to talk about.

The second thing I note is that I really get the sense that theists come from a position of absolutes.  There is such a thing as absolute good and absolute evil.  Things are very black and white.  And I think they project these notions onto the secular world where they may not fit.

What I don’t think he’s understanding is that scientific stuff, even “laws” and “theories”, are flexible.  They are merely descriptors of the universe around us, and can (and should!) change if they aren’t doing an adequate job of describing reality.  If we did find something that “broke” the laws of physics, that doesn’t mean all of physics is now meaningless.  It just means we need to refine our understand and description of reality.  And clearly we’re doing this as we discover new things at the fringes of our understanding of the universe (quantum physics, notably). 

Science works.  It is the very best way of refining our understating of reality.  In fact, if someone proposed a new way of ascertaining reality, we’d use the scientific method to figure out if it was actually better or not!

If I was the Devil

You have to admit... it makes some sense.

Bill Nye and Evolution

I'm a little surprised by the shortsightedness of Bill Nye in this video.  He says:

And I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world, in your world that’s completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe, that’s fine, but don’t make your kids do it because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need people that can — we need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems.

What he (apparently) doesn't realize is that parents teach their children what they think is the truth.  To ask a parent who truly believes in the creation story to deny it and not teach their kids the same thing is ridiculous.  And this, of course, is why some parents are so up in arms about evolution being taught in schools.

I mean, I don't believe in the Greek mythological creation story, so of course I'd be pissed if were taught as fact in school.

We, as a society, need to somehow do a better job at spreading the word that evolution is actually factually true.  And that doesn't mean just shouting it louder.  That means demonstrating it in a way that people can really understand, and change some minds.

Bob Dutko and Yoga

Recently I was listening to Bob Dutko on my drive home.  He’s on a local Christian radio station from at 5pm, so I frequently hear him on my drive home.

He’s a trip.  He’s a young earth creationist who takes a very literal approach to the Bible.  He believes in angels (and angles) and demonic forces.  He’s very concerned about false prophets, and people following a “false Jesus”.    Earth is 6000 years old.  Dinosaurs and man lived together.  Noah’s ark.  What’s so fascinating, though, is that his show is called “Defending the Truth”, and he argues his viewpoints from (in his words), a logical and rational and scientific point of view.  He’s got no problem using the second Law of Thermodynamics to “prove” that God exists. 

On top of all that, he has this deliciously smarmy and smug attitude which I love to hate.  He’s a brilliant debater, and frequently has people with opposing points of view on his show (either outright atheists, or theists who have a different interpretation of things than he does).

I generally find the debates about various interpretations of religious dogma somewhat boring.  It’s kind of like listening to people argue about the length of unicorn horns, and using various sources of mythology to back up their claims.  But yesterday, he had a female minister on (already contentious) who had written a book on practicing yoga in a Christian way.  He let his guest begin by talking about yoga, and the slow stretching and breathing, and how that really gets your mind and body into a place where you are relaxed and ready to meditate and pray.

He then steered the conversation towards the Hindu roots of yoga, and was really concerned that people who do it were falling prey to “Eastern religious mysticism”.  His guest obviously disagreed.  He then asked if yoga was good for people… not Christian yoga, but normal, traditional yoga.  Her response was “Well, the Hindu’s think so!”  This was impossible for him to swallow, and he went into a speech how Jesus was very clear that the only people who reach the Father come through him, etc.  They cut to commercial, and the announcer said “Coming up, Bob’s guest claims that there are many paths to heaven!”  I literally laughed out loud in my car, knowing that this was going to drive Bob apeshit.  It did, and he went into his standard railing against moral relativism and universalism, and once again said that there is only one true path to Heaven, and so on.  The guest simply said “Well, you and I disagree on that theology.”  Good stuff.

If you ever happen to be talking to Bob, mention that you think people get into heaven based on the kind of life they lead, and that even atheists or aboriginal Africans will go to heaven if they are good people, and watch him lose his shit.

Bears in the Bible

2 Kings 2:23-24, “Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up by the way, young lads came out from the city and mocked him and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead; go up, you baldhead!” 24 When he looked behind him and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two female bears came out of the woods and tore up forty-two lads of their number.”

This is a favorite Bible verse of skeptics.  It sounds very clear on the surface, doesn't it?  Elisha was traveling to Bethel, and mocked and teased by some young people.  He then curses them, and a couple bears show up and tear them apart.

Awesome.

What makes for really interesting reading is how this passage is justified. 

To read it one way, using varying translations and possible cultural and contextual clues, this was a mob of angry young men (upwards of 30 years old) who were casting death threats on Elisha.  So the bears were sent as a defensive measure against a certain attack.

Other commentaries claim that when Elisha "saw" the children, he saw they were totally wicked, and would grow up to be evil, and that somehow justifies their destruction.  Killing children before they grow up to be evil adults.

One article even goes on to say how Satan loves to attack the word of God, and "isn't it sad" when some of those attacks come from inside the church itself.  Reading between the lines:  "Don't question it!"

It's an interesting verse, for sure.  If you have already presupposed the nature of God as kind and loving and just, then it's necessary to do some mental gyrations to incorporate the brutal slaying of young people into that mindset.

In my own reading, I find it interesting that he was traveling to Bethel and while he was on the way, he was mocked.  Its important that he was in transit, and not at his destination.  In the various translations that I spot checked, he always "turned back" or "turned around" before cursing them.  Meaning, he was beyond them on his travel from A to B.  From a literal reading, they weren't blocking his path or intimidating him.  They were behind him.  To that end, it really feels more like an act of vengeance for mocking him, or God, or whatever.

Of course, I don't believe the event actually happened.  But it's an interesting little study.

Poor Herman Cain

Poor Herman Cain.  I remember feeling bad for the guy at the time.

Unsure of whether he should run for president:

“I prayed and prayed and prayed,” the former Godfather’s Pizza CEO said of his decision to run for president. “I’m a man of faith, I had to do a lot of praying for this one, more praying than I’d ever done before in my life. And when I finally realized that it was God saying that this is what I needed to do, I was like Moses: ‘You’ve got the wrong man, Lord. Are you sure?’”

Once the decision was made, Cain said, “I did not look back.”

Well, it should be noted that he didn’t look back until his alleged sexual misconduct and affairs were made public.  And he prayed about the decision to suspend his campaign, too.

God convinced Cain to run for the presidency, presumably with the knowledge that his philandering would come to light.  The only conclusion that we can draw from this is that God was teaching Cain some sort of lesson in humility.  I mean, is there any other possibility?  I don’t think it was in God’s plan for Cain to actually win the election, and Cain somehow subverted those plans with his human fallibility.

I’m confused by this course of action.  I guess I can’t say exactly why, but it strikes me as kind of petty or childish to trick someone into running for president, only to publically humiliate them later.  It’s like Lucy pulling the ball away from Charlie Brown.  The next time Herman Cain prays for something, and receives an answer for those prayers, he may think twice about actually acting on it.

Pascal's Wager

Pascal’s wager, in brief, says that it’s logical and rational to believe in God.  It is commonly used as an argument to convince someone that they are better off believing in God than not.

1)  God either exists, or he doesn’t.

2)  You can either choose to believe, or not.

Depending on what you choose, and whether God exists, there are some varying possible outcomes. 

If God doesn’t exist, then your choice doesn’t matter and nothing happens when you die.

If God does exist, and you are a believer, then you are rewarded with and infinite blissful afterlife.

If God does exist and you are NOT a believer, then you are punished with infinite suffering.

If you believe, than at worse, nothing bad happens.  At best, you win everything.  If you don’t believe, at best nothing good happens.  At worst, you get infinite punishment.

Nice.

There are some very basic problems with this.

First, “God exists or doesn’t” is actually shorthand for:  “The Christian God exists and is as described in the Bible, and no other gods exist”.  Clearly, there isn’t a direct opposite to that compound statement.  Either the Christian God doesn’t exist (but other gods do), or he does exist but isn’t necessarily as described in the Bible, or he is one of many gods that exist.

Suppose God isn’t as he’s described in the Bible?  Suppose he rewards skeptical thinking and rationality, rather than faith and obedience in the face of shoddy evidence?  Suppose the Bible was influenced by Satan himself as a trick to lead the gullible astray?  These are certainly in the realm of possibility.

Second is the notion that we can choose our beliefs.  This is a big one, because I’m not sure what it would take for me to actually believe that the Bible was true.  Literally and figuratively, it might take a miracle.  I suppose I could choose to pray, go to church (which one?!), and live a pious life, but I’m not sure I could honestly admit that I Believed.  If God designed me, then he designed my great big brain and wired skepticism into it.  And as a god, he should have KNOWN that ancient texts written in dead languages with vague interpretations isn’t the best way to attract followers.  Therefore, I can only conclude that he made things vague on purpose, and is purposefully weeding out skeptics like myself.  I find that to go against the grain of the message of Christianity as I’ve read it.

Finally, there is a hidden cost in the “believe in God when no gods exist” option that isn’t mentioned in the wager, which is how a person lives their life.  If Believers turn out to be wrong, it’s very possible that they have wasted a huge amount of their lives.  If their religious beliefs restrict them from certain foods or activities, then they are possibly denied a great deal of pleasure.  Hours spent in church could have been spent more constructively.  And maybe most importantly, it would be a shame if someone spent their lives implicitly or explicitly waging a war against things like homosexuality, evolution, etc, only to find out their Biblical argument didn’t hold any water.

I like to think that if there is a god, and he is who he says he is, then he knows me, and he knows my thinking.  The happy, fuzzy Christians say that “Jesus loves you no matter what”.  I hope that’s true.  If it somehow comes to pass that I find myself in the hot-seat of the afterlife, at least I can hold my head high and say “Look, man… I did the best I could with what you gave me to work with.”  And if that’s not enough to save me, then I guess I’ll hope that Satan appreciates skeptics and rational thinkers.

Satan

Satan is a particularly interesting character.

To hear some sermons about the subject, Satan is a very real force acting upon humanity.  Satan wants to sow discord and tear humanity apart through lies and deceit, while the real church endeavors to do the opposite.  I heard a sermon where the pastor was talking about driving up and down the road to the various churches in the area, and he could tell which ones had already been infiltrated by agents of Satan because of their false teachings.  Likewise, I’m sure most universities are already “fallen”, to say nothing of new age stuff, yoga, etc.

The most interesting part, though, is that according to doctrine, Satan doesn’t appear to work through traditionally evil ways.  Rather, he’s an imposter and a beguiler with a sweet tongue.  He tempts and leads people astray.

I think it’s safe to say that most Christians feel secure that they are following the true church, while the university student studying evolution or the hippy who owns the New Age bookstore have obviously been led astray.  But isn’t that too easy?  Surely Satan is clever enough not to be so blunt.  And, indeed, as in the reference sermon above, Satan was actually working his powers inside the churches themselves, unbeknownst (obviously) to the congregations in that church.

I wish I could have talked to the pastor in the referenced sermon.  He was going on and on about how subtle and clever Satan was, and how we all needed to beware of his charms.  I wish I could have asked the pastor to prove that he himself was not working for Satan and trying to beguile us.    It would have been great fun to say “Your words are so persuasive…  How can I be sure that you’re not trying to sow discord in the Body of Christ and turn us against the other churches?”  No matter what the response, there’s always the comeback of “Well, of course, that’s what Satan WOULD say…”  It’s grade school theology, but it would be fun.

The whole “problem of evil” and why God allows Satan to exist is a big one, and certainly more than I can cover.  The general answer that I understand is that God allows free will and Satanic influence as a test, much in the same way a girlfriend might ask “Do you think she is prettier than me?”  You’re free to answer the question, but if you answer the wrong way, you’ll hopefully learn from your mistake.  Also, and this is apparently crucial, God allows evil to exist because he’d already decided WAAAAY in advance that Jesus would come and pay the price for that sin.

Another answer is that God could have eliminated Satan, but since his influence had already entered into humanity, he’d have to kill Man as well (why?)  But he loves us so much, he decided not to do that.  The great flood seems to indicate that God is willing to take some pretty drastic measures, but apparently total and complete genocide is too much.  Again, why?  God allowed sin into the world (or, at least, didn’t do much to prevent it), and then kills nearly everyone as a result.

I’m losing my train of thought (probably Satan), so I’ll just stop here.

Rape, Murder, and Suicide. Then what?

In a discussion on the Atheist Experience, a theist caller questions what happens if there is no God or heaven or hell.  If that is the case, what is the punishment for bad people?

Matt answers that there is no punishment.  They just die.  If someone rapes and murders people, and then commits suicide, they’ll be dead.

Then Matt says “Let’s flip it around.  What’s the punishment for someone who rapes and murders people, and then gets saved?”

The caller says “The punishment is hell…”

Matt says “No, they got saved!  Are you saying rapists can’t get saved?”

“Uhhhh…”

 

The caller falters, at a loss for words.

Matt responds with one of the greatest rants of all time:

“See, this is the problem with Christian religion.  It establishes unrealistic and irrational and immoral criteria by which to live, and then it creates a loophole so that you don’t ever have to be responsible for those actions. Christianity is not a moral system.  It is an immoral system.  Because it specifically says there aren’t necessarily consequences that you’re going to have to pay because of a loophole.  And what is the loophole?  It has nothing to do with how good you are, how morally you act, or anything else.  It has to do with whether or not you’re willing you are to be a sycophant to an idea.  And if you are, then there is now an exception for which you no longer have to suffer a penalty for this.  So the idea that secular morality offers no guarantee that people will ever pay for their crimes and their atrocities is not an argument against secular morality, because that is a tenet of Christianity.  It is the foundation.  The idea that the Christian god is just is directly contradicted by the idea that the Christian god is merciful.  Perfect justice and any mercy are necessarily directly in contradiction, because mercy is a suspension of  justice.  So do not pretend that your religion is moral and just, and then try to attack my position, which is based on reality, because somebody might rape people, shoot themselves in the head, and then not get punished.  That’s asinine.”

God of the Parking Spots

This showed up on my Facebook feed today:

I don't want to pick on the specific person, because I don't know if they are being literal, or using sarcasm or exaggeration for the sake of embellishing a story.  But when I read stuff like this, I frankly don't know how to react.  I think this confusion is related to Poe's Law, which basically says that honest fundamentalism and satire/parody of same can be swapped in and out for each other.

Regardless of this specific post, the point remains that there are people who WOULD attribute little things in their day to the existence of a god.  Some people refer to this as the God of the Parking Spots.  As in, "Wow, an empty parking spot right in front of my favorite store!  God must really want me to shop here today."

That might sound ridiculous, and indeed, even Christians would admit that this theory doesn't hold much weight (or even if it does, it's not good theology to pray for parking spaces).

However, on my drive home this afternoon, a pastor was talking about setting up a new church, and some difficulties with funding, and some tough choices that needed to be made.  He said he prayed about it, and talked about how a common question with Christians is whether the thoughts you have are just hunches from your own mind, or God speaking to you and answering prayers.  To answer his own question, he said that he likes to see if anything external happens that might validate his thinking that it's an answered prayer.  In other words, if he just comes up with an idea, that is his own mind.  But if something outside of his control happens to validate his idea, that's God's hand at work.

So, with his tough choice about church funding, he decided to keep his mouth shut at the board meeting.  But lo and behold, other people voiced the exact same thing he'd been thinking.  He said this very seriously, and the person interviewing him agreed with reverence, as if it truly was God's work.  Apparently when people agree with each other or think similarly about an issue, that's a miracle.

This strikes me as almost exactly the same thing as the parking spot example.  An external event is attributed to the influence of God.  Indeed, if you traced the causal chain of events that led to an empty parking space (or a bowel movement), it's pretty clear that nothing miraculous is going on.  (Granted, how people think, how thoughts are born, and how we make decisions isn't quite as clear.)

I guess it's related to the Sharpshooters fallacy.  Thousands of things happen in our lives every day.  You can't just draw a circle around two things that happen and say "these things are related".  That is to say, you can't say to yourself "I wonder what God has in store for me today", and then see a prime parking spot and say "Ah ha!  God wants me to park here."

Heaven and Hell

Let’s assume for the moment that God exists, Christ is risen, and Christianity is true as described in the Bible.  I could mark every sentence with (allegedly), but let’s just take that as read.

The main tenet of Christianity, as I understand it, is that humans are fallen creatures with a sinful nature.  Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit and are banished from the garden.  Humanity rises up and grows wicked and self-indulgent, and the earth is flooded, wiping everyone out.  Finally, Jesus is born, lives a perfect sinless life, and then dies as payment, saving us all from damnation, and instead granting us access to the kingdom of heaven.

The main point is that Jesus died for our sins.  We are sinners, destined for hell (or, at best, we are nobodies who will simply be annihilated and forever separated from God).  But if we are “saved”, then we are granted access to a glorious afterlife.

Heaven sounds pretty awesome, and I want to go.  How do I get there?  As it happens, there is some disagreement on this point. 

Some believe it is based on “works”, or the good things you have done in your life.  Do good things and be a good person, and you’ll go to heaven.  If you do something bad, say you’re sorry.  Note that in this case, there is some wiggle room for atheists to still get in.  Faith isn’t required.

That all sounds well and good.  God grants good people a place in heaven, and sends bad people to hell.  It’s very comforting, and we can rest assured that someone who goes on a murderous rampage before turning the gun on themselves is burning, while dear old granny is playing badminton with Jesus.

But being a good person all the time is hard.  People sin.  Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron follow a script where they get people to admit that they’ve lied, stolen, blasphemed, and looked on someone with lust, therefore committing adultery.  Everyone has broken some commandment or another, and therefore we’re ALL doomed to hell.  But we have a savior!  Jesus died and paid for our sins, and all we have to do is ask him for forgiveness, and we are saved and can go to heaven.

So, the big rhetorical question:  What are we being saved FROM, exactly?  God created a system where the default position is damnation for everyone (why?), and only those who believe in him get in.  Even if we’re BAD PEOPLE who sin (which we are), we can still get a free pass through Jesus.  The whole point of Jesus’ crucifixion was precisely to wash away the sins of humanity (except, it should be noted, the sin of not believing.  That’s the only unforgiveable sin, as I understand it).  This is no longer justice, and is no longer moral.  This is a loophole that allows us to have hope of getting into heaven without having to hold ourselves to an actual heavenly standard.  Even murderers and rapists and child abusers can still get into heaven, so long as they repent and accept Jesus at some point in their lives.

Now, the next question:  Why does God require a blood sacrifice?  Why did Jesus have to die as payment for our sins?

And finally:  How are some hours of torture and a few days of death (followed by a promotion to King of Heaven) an adequate payment for everyone’s collective sins?  If I sin, all I have to do is remind God that he sent is only begotten son to die for me, and I’m forgiven?  Forgive my confusion, but this makes no sense to me. 

Not only does this all not make sense to me, but I’m not convinced that it makes sense to ANYONE.  It’s just kind of hand-waved away, with statements like “God doesn’t send people to hell, you choose that for yourself”, and, of course “The Lord works in mysterious ways.”  And I’m not trying to commit the “argument from ignorance” fallacy and therefore claiming this is therefore wrong.  But if someone came to my door and told me I needed to start going to church and changing my lifestyle, and this is the only reason they can give, I’m going to have some questions.

So what evidence is there that this is the real, true story and should be listened to?  That will have to be a future post.

What Possible Harm...?

Ok, so I don’t believe in any gods.  Who cares?  Why even talk about it?

I don’t consider myself to be a “militant” atheist.  I’m not particularly out to change anyone’s opinion.  In fact, most of my goal is to educate and illuminate my own thoughts on the matter, and see if and where I’m misunderstanding something, or just flat out wrong.

But there are those who think religion is necessarily a bad thing.  There are two major points that I tend to agree with.

The first is that religion stifles exploration and discovery and masks the true nature of reality.  There’s an old joke that you always find your car keys in the last place you look.  The joke being that once you find your keys, there is no reason to keep looking anywhere else.  Religion (generally speaking) claims to have answers to many damn difficult questions.  Where did the universe come from?  Is there life on other planets?  Where did humans come from?  What happens after we die?  From what I understand, theists claim to have the answers to these questions.  God spoke the universe into existence, created humans (and the sun and the moon and animals and plants) in our current form.  When we die, we go to heaven or hell or somewhere else.

These answers very well might be true, but I’m not convinced that anyone KNOWS they are true.  And some of these questions (what happens after we die) might never be able to be adequately answered.  My point, though, is that believing that you know the answer when, in fact, you may be wrong is bad.  It hides what could very well be the truth.

My understanding of science is that you’ll never fall into this trap.  I don’t think there’s any scientific theory or principal that isn’t rigorously tested and questioned all the time.  Think about it:  If someone discovered that gravity worked differently HERE than it does THERE, that would be an immense discovery.  Evolution has been demonstrated and is generally accepted to be accepted as the reason why life is the way that it is.  But imagine if a mammalian fossil was discovered in rocks that were older than a certain age.  Or if we discovered that DNA doesn’t replicate and mutate the way we always thought it did.  Those would turn evolution on its head.

The point being:  I’m not convinced that theists do anything to question their own beliefs with any real honesty.  They’ve been told that God created humans in their current form, so that’s good enough for them (regardless of whether that’s actually true or not).

Eric Hovind: We stick one hundred percent with God’s Word and what He says because that is the revealed word to us. That is where truth comes from. It is, as you said, our presupposition.  And so their fear in any argument is that you stick to God’s Word, because soon as we leave God’s Word, we have lost the debate, haven’t we?

There it is.  Suppose the Bible is true, and then try to fit reality into that world view.  That strikes me as backwards thinking.  Rather, we should take evidence from the world, and use that to formulate our concepts of reality.

The second concern is that peoples actions are a result of their beliefs.  If people believe nutty things, than they tend to do nutty things.  People who believe the voices in their head instructing them to shoot people are dangerous.  People who believe that they should kill others who don’t believe in their god are dangerous.  I’ve personally heard (and heard of more) Christians who admit that if they believed that they got a message from God instructing them to kill their child (a la Abraham and Isaac), that they would do it.

Your beliefs inform your actions, and your actions frequently affect other people.  Shouldn’t we take care to make sure that we believe only things that are true, and throw out as many false (or even absurd beliefs) as possible?  Shouldn’t our beliefs closely align with reality as possible?  I think everyone would agree with this, of course.  It’s obvious.  To that end, we should all question and verify what we believe to be true with a skeptical eye.  If we believe something for which we have no proof, or indeed for which we can’t explain or demonstrate or have evidence for, we should strongly consider changing our minds.  This is called being a skeptic, and is the opposite of faith.  I believe it is the best way to most closely align our beliefs with actual reality.

None of this is to say that all religions are wholly evil.  Obviously religion (and for the most part I’m speaking of evangelical Christianity) has many benefits, and helps many people.  But I’d go on a limb to say there are NO social benefits that religion provides that couldn’t also be provided through purely secular means.

In summary:

Religious claims are usually taken to be absolutely true with (at best) tenuous evidence, and therefore are in danger of masking real truth.

Beliefs inform peoples actions.  If you believe absurd things, you’re more likely to do absurd things.  We should all try to believe the most true things as possible, and throw away as many false beliefs as possible.