While watching a video this morning we came across a condensed version of some of the most frequent arguments we see from theists. In the clip, the religious individual brought up four main points in rapid succession, while trying to prevent the opposing side from being able to respond to any of them. Since we’ve seen these same arguments, in one form or another, in many of our discussions with the religious I’ll explain how I respond to them.
Broken down, the objections to atheism were as follows:
1. Atheism is idiocy, because the existence of God is self-evident.
2. Where do your morals come from if you don’t believe in God?
3. Why are there still monkeys around if we evolved from monkeys?
4. How do you explain the existence of the universe if God isn’t real?
When dealing with a barrage of opposition of this nature, frequently delivered all at once, it’s important to take a step back and address each issue on its own. During debates with the religious, it’s entirely too easy to let the discussion drift between issues quickly without anything being covered in adequate detail, which gives the religious debater the upper hand. Religious belief of any nature thrives on jumping to conclusions without closely examining the evidence, or even outright ignoring evidence that is readily available and contradics currently held views. With a discussion of this nature, it’s critical to calmly and rationally delve into each objection singly and try to get the opposition to actually think about the answers to these questions, instead of just letting them continue to believe that the very questions themselves somehow prove a point.
Before moving on to dealing with the four issues themselves, at least some time should be taken to clarify what exactly is meant by the term “atheist.” I’ve had discussions with religious folk who literally believe that atheism somehow equates to active devil worship, despite the fact that atheists don’t believe in the Christian devil. Other than clearing up misconceptions, explaining the meaning of the term atheism gives you a chance to establish common ground with the theist.
For example, as an atheist I don’t believe in anything supernatural or in the multitude of gods and goddesses described by mankind throughout our history. I don’t believe in magic powers or unicorns or fairies or Zeus or Thor or Jehovah or Allah. While a Christian may completely disagree with me about the existence of Jehovah, most of them are willing to admit that Zeus isn’t real and is nothing more than a fairy tale. Creating that common ground gives the atheist a better place to argue from and a better way to frame arguments from a perspective both parties can agree on. Many theists are willing to admit that it would be a nonsensical practice to offer sacrifices to Zeus in hopes of staving off his lightning bolt wrath. Likewise, I find it equally absurd to think that I need to telepathically affirm my allegiance to the sacrificial lamb/zombie son of Jehovah to avoid an eternity of hellfire and torment.
As a final issue before delving into the issues themselves, it is critical that the burden of proof be discussed with the arguing theist. When a theist asks a question such as “If God isn’t real then where did the universe come from?” they are working from a worldview where atheists have to disprove the existence of their deity. This clearly isn’t the case, however, because the burden of proof requires that the person claiming something exists must prove that thing’s existence. The person hearing the claim isn’t required to disprove the claim.
Consider if we ignored the burden of proof, as so many Christians do, and we worked off the assumption that all beliefs are correct until proven wrong. This would mean that all Christians would need to disprove the existence of Allah, and conclusively prove that Islam is not the one true religion, before being able to dismiss Islam’s claims.
One of the easiest ways to illustrate this point is to explain an absurd supernatural belief that has no evidence to back it up, and ask the theist to disprove it. A favorite example of mine is the giant fuzzy pickle named Bob. Say that I believed the universe was created by a giant fuzzy pickle named Bob, and that Bob’s nemesis (an invisible purple elephant named Tim) created Christianity to lure people away from Bob’s truth. Christians absolutely can’t prove my belief wrong and conclusively disprove the existence of Bob (to do so would require knowing literally everything in the universe, as Bob may be hiding at the center of reality and actively obscuring himself from human detection).
I could even say things like, “But if Tim doesn’t exist, then how do you explain the existence of Christianity? The very fact that you believe Christianity proves that Tim exists and that he’s lured you away from the truth. I pray that one day your eyes are opened before it’s too late.” But just because a Christian can’t disprove my claim, doesn’t mean they have to accept it as a valid possibility. The burden of proof falls on me to clearly demonstrate Bob’s reality – the burden of proof does not fall on the Christian to disprove Bob’s reality.
1. Atheism is idiocy, as God’s existence is clearly self-evident
The first point brought up by the theist in this particular discussion was that all atheists are idiots, because it’s obvious to anyone with a brain that God must be real. Laying the framework for a common ground is the best way to approach this objection and show how poorly thought out this point really is. The person making this claim very likely doesn’t believe in Zeus or Mithras, and yet both of those deities were once widely believed in and worshipped with the same fervor that a Christian believes in and worships Jesus. Clearly the existence of Zeus isn’t self-evident, which means the theist using this tactic needs to explain in great detail how they feel their deity’s existence is any more believable than the existence of Zeus or any other man made deity. The burden of proof is the killing blow here. Its one thing for someone to say God’s existence is self-evident. It’s quite another to provide the credible, verifiable evidence to back up that claim. An all-powerful God who is omnipresent (meaning he is everywhere at once) should be able to easily appear and prove his own existence, and yet you’ll note this has never once verifiably happened.
As our understanding of the natural world grows, our need for a God to explain mysteries continues to diminish. Earlier in our history, human beings attempted to appease various gods with prayers and sacrifices in order to ensure good weather for their crops. Now that our understanding of weather patterns and atmospheric conditions has advanced through the use of the scientific method, we can predict with a great deal of accuracy what the weather will be like in any given region. As our understanding of weather grows, our need for gods who influence the weather diminishes.
2. Where does your morality come from if you don’t believe in my God?
By asking this question, the theist exposes his or her belief that atheists (or even people who believe in a different deity) must be completely immoral. In one discussion I had with the Christian we’ll call “DD” (You can find a different discussion I had with “DD” here), he informed me that if he was an atheist there would be nothing wrong with him murdering my entire family, as there would be no God to declare such an action immoral. That sort of statement, which is used frequently by Christians trying to cite morality as a proof of God’s existence, shows that religion doesn’t actually account for our morals. How can one be considered a moral person if his first response would be to go on a murder spree if he discovered God wasn’t real?
Before explaining how atheists can have morals and where the atheist’s morality comes from, it should be noted that belief in the Christian deity, or any deity at all, does not somehow bestow moral values. Take, for instance, those parents who have allowed sick children to die by refusing to use medicine and instead deciding to rely solely on the “healing power” of prayer. I would hope that even theists can agree that killing children through neglect is not a moral behavior, and yet that behavior is explicitly created by belief in God. (As a side note, be sure to take a look at the video clip of us taking a trip to Portland to test the claims of Christians that prayer can heal diabetes) An atheist would never pick a magical cure over chemotherapy for a child with cancer, or beseech aid from invisible forces instead of getting a diabetic child insulin, but a theist very well may (and in fact have in all too many cases).
The many atrocities caused by religion aren’t a secret by any stretch of the imagination, and literally thousands of examples can be brought up if one bothers to discuss them long enough. Holy war, terrorism, Christians who bomb abortion clinics and shoot doctors, the Pope’s claim that condoms worsen AIDS and that people in Africa therefore shouldn’t use condoms, child abuse and the direct protection of child molesters, the murder of homosexuals, slavery, stoning women to death for nearly any slight imaginable, and many more completely immoral actions are all caused directly or fostered in a supporting atmosphere by religious belief.
I am an atheist, and I consider myself to be a moral human being. I don’t rape, murder, steal, destroy property, or attempt to enact legislation preventing people I don’t like from getting married. But how can I possibly stop myself from doing all these things if I don’t believe in an all-powerful outside force that decides what is morally right and what is morally wrong?
Simple: I follow the golden rule. I don’t believe any god, be it Jesus or Zeus or any other deity, has a cosmic tally board and is watching to see who is following the rules and who is breaking them. I don’t believe that deity has decided for me what is cosmically right and what is cosmically wrong. People decide on their own, both singly and together as societies, which actions are morally acceptable and which are not. As an atheist, I don’t require the threat of hell or the dangled reward of heaven to be a good person and prevent myself from hurting others.
At this point the theist is likely to ask something along the lines of: “Why bother being good then if there’s no punishment or reward?” First off, this very question shows how bizarre the mindset of religious folks really is. Who has the superior morality – the person who abstains from murder without any threat of punishment or reward, or the person who abstains from murder only *because* of the threat of punishment or reward? There is nothing inherently moral about giving to charity or being a decent person if the only reason one does these things is to appease a cosmic dictator or ensure a better spot in heaven.
As to why I specifically choose to behave in a moral manner without threat of punishment or promise of eternal reward, the answer is again simple: it is in my best interest to do so. I don’t want to be stolen from, so I don’t steal. I don’t want to be murdered, so I don’t murder. By abiding by the laws of society and my internal moral compass, I help to foster a world in which it is less likely that unpleasant things will happen to me. Likewise, I help to foster a world that will be safe for my future children. Belief in God simply is not required for anyone to have moral values.
In many instances the very basis of Christian morality (punishment or reward in the afterlife) is itself immoral. The Christian denomination of Mormonism has a doctrine known as “baptizing the dead,” in which church members hold baptisms for people who have already passed away. Mormons believe that these baptisms allow the deceased to reach the celestial kingdom even if they weren’t Mormon in life. One of the many historical figures the Mormons have symbolically baptized after death is none other than Adolf Hitler, mastermind of the Jewish holocaust during World War 2. Mormons (or at least the specific Mormons who performed the baptism for Hitler) literally want Hitler to be in heaven. Where is the morality in that?
One also has to question the morality of a supreme being who decides that an eternity of hellfire is the proper punishment for disbelief. If I, as an atheist who is generally a good person and has never done anything particular “hellworthy,” am to be condemned to hell because I saw no evidence to back up the existence of the Christian God, then I have to call into question that God’s “goodness.” If God has the ability to prove his existence to me, and therefore save me from being tortured for all eternity, but actively refuses to do so – then it would seem God is the immoral one in this equation.
Finally, there is another important issue to consider when contemplating where morals come from. If I am correct, and the Christian God isn’t real, then atheists and theists are both taking their morality from men and not from God. The people asking how I can be moral without belief in God aren’t considering that their morals didn’t come from God either if I am correct in my non-belief. The various religious figures throughout history who wrote the “holy” books of the world and claimed to receive divine revelation of morality from God were either being actively dishonest or were simply delusional, but either way the end result is the same – all people create their own morals. Some people just claim their morals are backed up by an invisible entity who can’t or won’t show up to confirm their involvement.
3. If we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys?
The number of times I’ve seen this question come up in discussions with the religious is actively disheartening, because this is a myth that just won’t seem to die. Evolutionary biologists do not, in any way, claim that humans evolved from monkeys. Let me repeat that, as this is key: humans did NOT evolve from monkeys, and no biologist makes this claim. Christians who ask this question are literally attacking a stance that no one holds to begin with.
Evolutionary biology teaches that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor, which likely lived somewhere in the neighborhood of six million years ago. Humans and chimps both evolved from that common ancestor, taking different evolutionary paths. The short video clip below shows biologist Richard Dawkins discussing our common ancestor with chimpanzees.
But how can we possibly know this? Two of the key evidences available for our common descent are the fossil record, and the human genome. Human and chimp DNA is 96 percent the exact same, which is even more of a match than is found between rats and mice. One of the most overwhelming evidences for our common ancestry with chimpanzees is that chimpanzees have 24 chromosomes, while humans only have 23. Yet when scientists studied one of the human chromosomes, they found it to be a perfect blending of two chimp chromosomes.
Another frequent objection, which usually comes up with this same issue, is for the theist to state there are no intermediary forms or “missing links.” This is one of the most common misconceptions theists hold in regards to evolution, because the fossil record does in fact have many intermediary forms, both in the evolution of humans and other creatures. This brief clip from Richard Dawkins shows him discussing the evolution of whales and the many intermediary forms that have been discovered and are readily available for scrutiny.
Evolution is an exceedingly complex subject with many different issues to be discussed. If you’d like to see some of the other objections to evolution brought up by theists, you can check out my earlier blogs about famous creationists Kent Hovind and Ray Comfort. I also have another blog here that covers a common creationist tactic of taking a quote from Darwin about the human eye out of context to purposefully be misleading. I highly recommend that everyone study the science of modern evolutionary biology further to gain a greater understanding of why mankind is the way it currently is. Numerous websites are readily available on the subject that can be found with a Google search as simple as “evidence for evolution.” Many books on the subject are easily obtainable, such as Richard Dawkins’ “The Greatest Show On Earth,” which is likely available at your local library.
4. Where did the universe come from if my particular God isn’t real?
This issue is usually an “end game” tactic when debating with theists, as they fall back on the same method of thinking that led people to pray to deities to change the weather. As mentioned before, the need for God shrinks as man’s understanding of the natural world grows. One of the remaining mysteries that haven’t been 100% explained by science is: “Where did the universe come from, and why is it the universe as opposed to anything else that it might have been?”
First off, it should be noted that man most definitely isn’t completely in the dark when it comes to the origin of the universe. As has been discussed in several of my previous posts, the theory known as the Big Bang does have observable, verifiable evidence backing it up. You can check out two resources on the observable evidence for the Big Bang at this location and also here.
Attempting to delve into a subject like the Big Bang with a theist who hasn’t read anything on the subject that didn’t come from an explicitly pro-Christian source, and will likely refuse to do so anyway, is an exercise in futility. An easier way to tackle this subject is to again refer to the common ground of disbelief in certain supernatural claims and to bring up the burden of proof.
Say, for the sake of argument, that we have completely misinterpreted all the available data, and that all current ideas on the origins of the universe are completely wrong. Even if that were the case, it wouldn’t suddenly make a supernatural explanation more likely to be true. Simply having a lack of data or complete understanding of a subject is not a valid excuse to throw up your hands and proclaim “An invisible wizard in the sky must be responsible!”
Take, for instance, any of the supernatural beliefs mankind has held throughout its history which were shown to be wrong when more evidence became available. Lightning is no longer attributed to an angry Zeus, but is now understood to be electricity brought about by atmospheric conditions. There was a time when people fervently worshipped the sun as a deity. Now we know the sun is but one of many stars composed of burning hydrogen and helium. We no longer have to attribute sickness and healing to witchcraft or the whim of the gods, but instead to germs and genetic dispositions and medicine.
Likewise, in current times, there is no reason to assume that a supernatural explanation for the origin of the universe is plausible just because there isn’t enough evidence to have a full understanding of the issue yet. If a theist insists that a lack of understanding somehow shows that God is responsible for the creation of the universe, then the burden of proof shows that it’s just as likely that Zeus created everything as it is that Jehovah created everything – as there is equally no evidence to suggest either being created existence.
It's also important to take into consideration the implications of the claim that God created the universe. Christians frequently use an argument known as the "clock without a clockmaker" when trying to convince people that the deity of their particular denomination created everything. I attended a Christian school as a child, and I frequently heard this particular argument. Typically the Christian will say something along the lines of "If you saw a clock lying in the road, you would never assume that clock simply developed by chance. You would assume that a clock implies there was a clock maker who deliberately designed the clock."
On the surface, this seems like a reasonable argument. It would in fact seem foolish to say that a working clock developed solely by chance instead of assuming someone put the clock together on purpose. Unfortunately, this is where the Christian stops using logic in order to continue to maintain a religious delusion. If nothing exists without a designer, and a clock must have a clock maker, then the next logical step is to ask where God came from. It would be exceedingly hypocritical, not to mention rather nonsensical, for someone to claim that nothing can exist without a maker, and then immediately claim that God can exist without a God maker.
By throwing your hands in the air and proclaiming "Some invisible God being must have done it!" you only move the equation back one step. In no way does the assertion that (insert the name of any given religion's God here) created the universe actually answer the question of where the universe really came from.
Please feel free to leave a comment below with common theist arguments you have heard, thoughts on my responses, or even how you have responded to Christians or other religionists when they bring up these issues.
No comments:
Post a Comment