A Missing Chapter of Genesis – Found, Again!

Due to a combination of being very busy this week and being lazy this weekend, I am not yet ready with the blog I am currently working on. However, instead of leaving a blank Monday I decided to repost one of my earlier blogs.  In fact, it is the one that has had the most views on my site.  First posted on May 23, 2012 here it is again.  Enjoy. 

I came across some interesting news today.  It seems that in some caves located in the deserts of northern Israel they have found a hitherto unknown section of Genesis, one that has apparently been lost and forgotten about for almost 2,000 years (there are cryptic references to it in some of the writings of Christians and Jews up to around 100 CE, but then all mention of it stops).    This section, consisting of probably three or four chapters, is not intact and there are obviously pieces missing, but what is there provides a whole new insight about the Bible and God.

Below is the translation of the first of the two sections from the lost chapters of Genesis that were found. 

“One day the angels came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them.  The LORD took Satan aside and said to him, “Where have you come from?”

Satan answered the LORD, “From roaming throughout the earth, going back and forth in it.”

Then the LORD said to Satan, “Have you considered the problem of Adam and Eve?  They have been banished from Eden and yet still are in danger of sinning further.  They are not following my commandment to be fruitful and increase in number; to fill the earth and subdue it.  Instead, they work and talk, talk and work, but do not do that which will increase their numbers as I have commanded. “

Satan answered the LORD, “Yes LORD, I have considered the failings of your creations, Adam and Eve. I have discovered why they do not procreate as you have commanded.”

Then the LORD said to Satan, “Then tell me why before I smite them and you again.”

Satan bowed to the LORD and answered him, “Because they are afraid O LORD.  When you banished them from Eden you told the woman that you will make her pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor she will give birth to children.  And you told the man that because he listened to his wife and ate fruit from the tree about which you commanded him, “You must not eat from it,” that the ground would be cursed and that only through painful toil will he eat food from it.  That the land will produce thorns and thistles for him and that he will eat the plants of the field only by the sweat of his brow. Now Eve is afraid to become with child and Adam is loath toil in more fields in order to feed more mouths.”

The LORD bowed his head in thought and then asked Satan, “Have you considered this problem Satan?”

“Yes my LORD,” answered Satan.  “Whilst in the Garden when there were no cares or fears and all came easy to them the fact that sex brought as much pleasure as drinking a warm glass of milk, to be engaged in only on nights when one or the other could not sleep was of no moment. 

But now, oh LORD, the milk has curdled.”

The LORD nodded and said, “Have you considered the solution then to this vexing problem Satan?”

Satan bowed and answered, “I have my LORD.  With your permission I will increase the size of the woman’s breast so that instead of being but slightly noticed hills upon a prairie field they shall rise up like majestic mountains and thus attract the gaze and desire of Adam. 

For Adam, I will increase the size of his member so that instead of rattling around like a thin stick in a cooking pot it shall provide a pleasurable sense of fullness for the woman so that the Eve will no longer be able to ignore it’s presence as before.

For both, I shall make the experience of love a thing to remember, an event of fireworks and blissful earthquakes; an act that they will enjoy so much that they will engage in it again and again and never consider the consequences.  Their own natures will help with that given how easily they were persuaded to eat of the apple. “

The LORD said to Satan, “Very well, everything that you need to accomplish this deed is now in your power. Go and do so, but no more than this.”

Then Satan went out from the presence of the LORD.”     

Now that is the end of the first fragment found of this long missing section.  There was one more fragment found though which I post below:

“After the LORD had said these things to Michael, he turned to Satan and said, “I am angry with you and your works.  Now that you have increased the size the Adam’s member and Eve’s breasts, now that you have increased the size of the pleasure that they know when intimate together; because of all that you have done they have wondered into new sins and know it not. Now I will have to teach the man and woman that most of their newly discovered pleasures are also sinful and will result in my wrath if continued.

The man now not only loves his wife but spends many hours playing with his member on his own and wasting his seed.  Or spends it in other openings of Eve not meant for procreation.  And Eve, she not only goes joyfully into her husband’s arms but also into the arms of goats, dogs, and other creatures not her husband.   

I foresee that as they procreate and fill the earth that both will know not only each other but each of them will know each of their sons and daughters, their grandsons and granddaughters, their great-grandsons, and great-grand daughters and so on down all the years of their lives!”

“LORD”, said Satan, “I only did as you asked so….”

And that is, unfortunately, all we have.  The rest of the chapter is missing.  As I said earlier I think though what we do have sheds some light on the Bible and its meaning.

Read Full Post »

A Revelation of Heaven

The other day I was listening to a sermon on the radio.  I know that this sounds like a strange habit for an atheist but I often find these sermons very informative and thought provoking.  Which this one was.

The preacher was talking about heaven and what it is like, and about what we can expect on reaching heaven.  Included in this sermon he talked about the size of heaven.  Yes, the Bible includes the actual size of heaven. Something I had never realized before. 

One interesting take away from this is that God already knows how many people will wind up in heaven.  Or at least the maximum number because, after all, if it is too small and crowded that would be a strike against it being paradise. 

But this was not the most revelatory thing I received from this sermon.  The thing I found most enlightening is how the dimensions of heaven were given.  From the New International Version of the Bible, Revelation 21:16. 

“The city was laid out like a square, as long as it was wide. He measured the city with the rod and found it to be 12,000 stadiain length, and as wide and high as it is long.”

For those who somehow missed this in your school science classes,  12,000 stadia is 1,380 miles. Which makes heaven a fairly large place at 1,380 miles a side. But, the interesting thing to me, the truly revelatory aspect of this description is how many sides heaven has.  As described in this verse in Revelations, Heaven is 1,380  miles long, 1,380  miles wide, AND 1,380  miles high.  In other words, Heaven is not a square but a cube! 

This gave me my true revelation, one that helped explain so many questions I had had over the years about how Heaven worked.  Heaven is a Borg Cube Ship!!  Which means that God is the Borg Queen.

And this makes perfect sense.  One of my problems with the idea of Heaven as depicted in the Bible is that it is forever.  God takes those who believe in him… er her, and in his… dang it her (are there Borg Kings?) son Jesus into Heaven to live with…her.  However, given that her original creations got kicked out of Eden for not being able to obey all her commands, and even some of the angels rebelled and had to be cast out what was going to be different in heaven to prevent God/Borg Queen from casting them out again?  With thousands of more people living in Heaven than In Eden, that is just that many more acts of rebellion and lapses waiting to happen.  If it happened with Adam and Eve, and even among the Angels, how is Heaven going to be any different?

But now I understand. Dead people are assimilated into the collective!  Instead of a three in one God it will be a many thousands in one God.  No rebellion for ever and ever amen. Just as God intended. 

Read Full Post »

Grief and Loss: The failure of Atheism Part 2

In a previous blog I talked about me looking into the possibility of there being a life after death after all, basically questioning my previous beliefs Let me say at the outset that I am still looking and thinking.  And still an atheist. 

My motive for writing this blog are twofold. First, to comment on some of the reactions and how they can show the difficulties of looking beyond our own beliefs and views. Second, to provide a little more information on the boundaries of my search. 

When I posted my first blog there were many good, thoughtful, and supportive comments, which were greatly appreciated.  In fact, all comments were appreciated.  Some though made arguments against the idea of an afterlife and my search that I thought interesting. 

First and foremost, many seemed to think I had already made up my mind. 

Despite what I said in my blog about this being the start of a process of questioning and not the end, some seemed to think I had already changed or made up my mind.  As I said in the blog, and as I say now, I am still an atheist.  I am just an atheist who is questioning core beliefs.  There are no set conclusions, no set destination. 

For myself, I have always considered occasionally questioning beliefs that you are certain is true is a good thing.  For one, it is how many atheists come about.  But this also applies to other areas in addition to that of religious beliefs. I am not so arrogant as to assume that all my beliefs, no matter how strongly held, are correct.  History shows that they probably will not be.  And given that there are so many moral people who are well informed and intelligent who also believe in an afterlife, and a God for that matter, then it seems rational to me to allow the emotion generated by my wife’s death to point out a direction for my reason to explore. 

Arguing from biology that a life after death is impossible. 

This involved the belief (which has strong support by the way) that our brain is the source of our consciousness. Which would probably mean that no brain, no consciousness.  As I have said, I am an atheist.  I am very well aware of this and still agree with it for now. Those who brought this up often seemed to think I did not.  Or that I was trying to willfully delude myself.  Both beliefs about me are wrong.

However, as I said above, this is open to question.  Consciousness is still a very unsettled area of science. Its explanation does not rest on as firm a foundation as relativity or evolutionary theory. This piece by Sam Harris, “The Mystery of Consciousness“), shows that even atheists can question whether the brain is the final or complete answer to consciousness.  So why not question this assumption, even if it has some support from science?  Which, by the way, opens up the possibility of an afterlife without a God. As a matter of interest, I have found at least three atheists who think so and have written about it.  I have not read what they had to say yet, but will. And then make my own decision.

Arguing from a traditional view of the afterlife

Some brought up hell and how could I live with the idea of hell and how would I know where my loved ones would wind up.  The simple answer is that I am not looking at the traditional ideas of the afterlife as promoted by traditional Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.  Yet, that did not seem to occur to those who brought this up, and some continued to do so after I informed them of this.

This assumption of a traditional view of the afterlife, usually Christian (although it fits with Muslim and Jewish too) is not surprising.  They did not stop and think to ask what exactly I was looking at and considering. Which, by the way, is actually very normal.  We all interpret the world, including the words we read, by our own previous ideas and assumptions.  The problem comes in not changing those when they are shown to be incomplete or wrong. 

This is one reason why there are young earth creationists, anti-vaxxers, the election was stolen beliefs, and so forth – they have some assumptions that they know are true and are beyond questioning.  These are extreme versions of this trait, but it also holds true for even more rational beliefs.  And why, when new discoveries are made in science, it can take time for people to be convinced.  Some of that is good in the right context and amount – science for example.  But, when taken to extremes, always wrong. 

While on this about assumptions, let me say I am guilty of the same in this blog.  I had started to put in a part about those who argued about the existence of God on the list, stating that I was talking about the afterlife and not the existence of God.  However, in rereading my blog I see I did mention God.  What I was thinking was not clearly expressed by the words in that blog, but, of course, I remembered the intent and not so much the words when I started to add God to the list above.  Until I rechecked my blog. 

So, let me now clarify that point.  My main focus is on an afterlife.  If I can be convinced that there is one without a God, that would be cleaner and easier to do rationally.  When God is added to it, then you have various philosophical and moral problems associated with such in addition to the scientific issues with a life after death. But I will say, if strong enough reasons can be given for this hypothetical God, not enough to prove necessarily, but enough so allow for a reasonable belief in such, I may well believe in God.  Reasonable would also include having to be a moral God.  But, again, that has not happened yet.  And most likely will not.

An Observation

Some atheists tried in various ways to convince me that there is no real comfort to be found in believing in an afterlife, or that the comforts provided by atheism in the face of loss of loved ones is just as good as those found by believers.  I can only say – huh?  

Thinking about the impact my loved one made in so many people’s lives, or thinking that her constituent parts are now part of the universe and eternal, or that even though her name will someday be forgotten but her impact on the world will live on in the generations after her, is somehow as comforting as believing that the woman I loved and talked with and laughed and cried with is still alive as a personality that can feel and see and who I can someday see and be with?  As comforting as believing that this woman’s last thoughts were not that of knowing she was going to die soon and of all that she was going to miss – her grandchildren’s upcoming dance recital and the exchange of presents, of going to see Hamilton in January, of future conversations with me and her family and friends – but of knowing that she continued on past this, and while missing all of those events, still  aware of them and who could look forward to being reunited not only with loved ones and friends who have already died but also  those of us who will someday die? 

Not even close.

On my last birthday I received a pocket compass.  When the lid is flipped open it, in part, reads “…where and how far this amazing journey takes us I will always and forever be right by your side”.  I find much lesser comfort in any belief that means that this is wrong.  As would most people. 

Or the other tactic of trying to say that a life after death is not to be desired, would be horrible, is most definitely not a thing to want.  Usually this is done by arguing only about one possible belief in an afterlife (hell is often a part of this). 

I can only say – really? 

Those who argued this seem to want to believe that an atheist, a belief in no God and no afterlife, is in every way superior to believing in a God and/or an afterlife.  That is wrong. 

Atheism is statement of what is perceived to be true on one question, does God exist.  Nothing else.  No promise of comfort in holding such belief.  No promise that holding such belief is going to be better in every way other than being true on that one question from those who do believe.   Its only claim is to be a more factual statement on one aspect of reality.  There is no promise that that reality is going to be better.  That is an emotional response.  One revealing more about our needs as human beings that about reality.  Of course, this being true, and given what I said, for some people that will be true – an afterlife is not something to be desired, or, probably more common, the comfort atheism affords to loss is the equal of believing in an afterlife.  We are varied in our needs and thinking.  So, some do feel this to be true.  Many though, and I believe even most atheists, when offered a choice would choose life after death as being the more comforting belief.  

That does not mean atheism offers no comfort.  It does.  As many thoughtful atheists pointed out to me, and for which I am grateful.  But, while a meal of rice and beans may indeed keep soul and body together, they are not as satisfying, to me at least, as pizza or Tacos with nachos 

Clarifications. 

Let me now clarify some other aspects of my search. 

First, any afterlife which has an eternal hell I will reject on moral reasons alone.  Even if such existed I would be against it.  Which means I seriously doubt that I would be convinced by any argument or reasoning in such an afterlife (for one thing I would hate to pit myself against a being that could create an eternal hell.  I would be seriously outmatched).  An afterlife in which we still have struggles and challenges is possible, but hell is a hard no. 

Second, I am not going to be a traditional believer.  I do not see my becoming Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu or any other religion.  Those issues still seem too great for me to do so.  It is one reason I mentioned Martin Gardner, since he is a noted skeptic who is not a member of any religious group thinking they all are wrong on significant issues but who nonetheless still believes in a God and, more important to me, a life after death. 

As a side note, it was his book “Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science” that started my transition from believing that ESP and the paranormal were real to realizing that they most likely were not.  I have greatly enjoyed his books and his work.  And it was his being one of the founding members of Committee for the Scientific Investigation of the Claims of the Paranormal that was part of my motivation for me subscribing to the Zetetic (now the Skeptical Inquirer, of which I am still a subscriber through all its years).  It is one reason why, many years ago, I was surprised to find that he believed in God and an afterlife.  I have never read why before though.  I am now. 

Third, I am aware of how our motivations and needs can cause our reasoning to go badly astray. Because of that I am reviewing some material I have read in the past on this and making a conscious effort not to make such errors.  Which makes this month’s issue of Skeptical Inquirer with its article “The Irrational World of Motivated Reasoning” rather timely. 

Fourth, and final point.  I will not proselytize.  This is my search and if I wind up changing my views on the afterlife and God, they will be my beliefs.  As I have said, when I finally conclude my search I will post a blog on the results, whether I change my beliefs to either believing in an afterlife without a God, an afterlife with a God, or still stay with my current atheist beliefs that neither exist.  And will explain why.  But no proselytizing beyond that explanation and defense of it if questions and challenges are posed. 

As for when the process will be finished, I don’t know.  I am still reading Martin Gardner’s book and have several articles and some of other books lined up to read.  I will say that for now, my atheisms still holds.  In fact, I think it very unlikely that I will change my mind on the non – existence of God.  But, in regards to a life after death – while still unlikely it is still a possibility.  Smart money would bet against it, but it is less certain now than before. 

Final, or rather for the moment final thoughts on this may be ready in two to four months. Or it may be in a year or three.  After all, it took me a little over three years of questioning and modifying my beliefs and remodifying them and so forth for me to change from a traditional Christian to an atheist. Although I hope and think it will be closer to two or three months instead of years, it will take what it takes.

Read Full Post »

Grief and Loss: Failure of Pure Atheism Part 1

My Better

Dindy 9/18/1959 – 12/13/2021

Today I lost my someone who made things better. 

When I was confused and questioning, she made things better. 

When I was hurting and lost, she made things better

When I did not know what to do and doubted myself, she made things better. 

And during the good times, the laughing times, the play times with our children and grandchildren, she made things better. 

When we went to plays and fairs and movies and beaches and more, she made all that was good and fun even better. 

 When in a room together, silent, each doing something different, she made it better. 

She made my life better in all and every way.  And now, she cannot make this better.  And I feel lost

I have always thought that straight atheism is a totally negative belief.  It denies one thing – the existence of a omnipotent being. However, it posits nothing, gives nothing, provides nothing.  It is a blank and a void that needs to be filled in.  Without something with which to fill this void, atheism is nothing more than bleak nihilism.  Which is why I have more often called myself a humanist.  Which I imagine I will remain being too.  But, as the new year begins, I may be revising my ideas and beliefs so that my humanism after will be slightly, or greatly, different than the one I held before.  Then again, it may not.    

Let me state at the outset that I come to no conclusions in this blog.  This is just the start of a process of questioning and thinking.  One brought about by the death of my wife of 42 years.  And the fact that traditional atheism, even the traditional humanist type, that believes in no God and no life after death, has no comfort to give when a loved one dies too soon. 

As for why I am sharing this personal journey (a journey which may arrive at the same port it started from)?  I am sharing this because I believe that this is an issue that is common to all people, and most especially atheists. What do to with loss.  How to handle it.  Also, because for most atheists, questioning is important.  Which should include our own beliefs. 

I know many will criticize even this sort of questioning as being more the result of emotions than of reason and logic and evidence. However, so what if it is. After all, most atheists do not downplay the theist who questions the existence of a God on the basis of loss and emotion.    

More importantly, we are, at our core, essentially emotional creatures. We are not computers, not machines, not Vulcans.  We are emotional humans.  Something Hume recognized and acknowledged when he stated, “Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.”

Reason and logic and evidence have their place – an important and critical place – but theirs is not the sole or even most important place.  That is in emotion. Which means that our beliefs will never be, and should not ever be, totally the product of only rational thought. 

So, if my emotions demand that death not be the end, that losing my loved one much too soon, so unexpectedly soon, cannot be the final end, why shouldn’t I at least listen to it and give it due consideration and thought? I am not and never have been and never will be perfect in my actions, my thoughts, my beliefs.  In that I am like all humans. Knowing that, questioning of beliefs I had thought true is good. 

Further, there is something to be said for holding a belief just because it provides emotional comfort.  Something that my wife and I did with our semi- held belief in the Rainbow Bridge.  Our emotional needs are as important as any of our physical ones.  In some ways more so.

This is not to say that there are no limits to such believing.  There most definitely are. But, the fact that a belief is held just because if provides emotional comfort is not reason by itself to denounce and deny it.  Such a belief may not be rational, but neither is the fact that only emotion supports it make it irrational.  If the belief is not clearly contradicted by reason and evidence, as is young earth creationism, then it is not proven irrational.  And if it benefits a person, why not belief?  It is a question of do our beliefs serve us or are we the puppets of our beliefs?  My initial thought is that it the answer to this is more complicated than a straight yes or no. 

Then there is the fact that we may never be intelligent enough to fully understand our natural universe. That, although we have advanced further in our understanding than our Australopithecus ancestors, that there well may be a point at which we reach our limits of understanding the natural world. At that point we would be like  Australopithecus wondering about the lights in the night sky.  This means that although we do not have the answers to all questions, and likely never will, that does not make all things we do not have answers to untrue.  Or not natural. 

As I said at the beginning, there will be no consummation of this thought in this blog. This is the start of the testing and exploration, not the end result.  I have started reading Martin Gardner’s “The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener” as well as reading the different responses to it. From there, we’ll see. I have no set date for concluding or adding to this subject. That remains to time and chance. But, in the meantime, while questioning, I will hold on to my current beliefs of no life after death and no eternal omnipotent being. And hope.

Read Full Post »

Render Unto God

 

My wife has been seriously ill for almost a year now, at one time being bedridden. She is now, finally, improving, and after six months of having to use wheelchair is actually walking. During that time she has gotten used to and accepted those who have said they are praying for her.  She considers those, correctly I think, as more expressions of support and good will than anything else and appreciates them as such. However, now that she is improving, there is something that really annoys her from the more devout of her friends – giving thanks to God for her recovery.

While my spouse is tactful and has not communicated her annoyance to those doing this, and likely will not, I can’t help consider how these people and we seem to view the world so differently.  To my spouse and the others like her, saying this denies or devalues the importance of the efforts of so many people:

Herself, for continuing on even during the worst of times.

Myself, for the support, both physical and emotional, that I provided.

Her family, for the emotional support they provided.

The doctors and nurses, and hospitals (two and several repeated visits) for their work and efforts.

I know that those who render unto God my wife’s healing know all of the above, and would readily admit that they played a role. But, most, would then go on to say how without God, none of that would have done any good, or that God guided their hands, their decisions, or gave support even in the midst of dark despair and depression.  This mindset illustrates a fundamental difference, not between just atheists and theists, but even among theists.

To those like myself and my wife, this rubs the wrong way, badly. We know how much work and care went into changing my wife’s health, and feel that this totally devalues that work and dedication.

But, there is another problem with this sort of attitude. If God gets praise and recovery for my wife’s recovery then shouldn’t God also get the blame and condemnation if she had gotten worse, or died.  When you widen your view then shouldn’t God, in addition to being praised for all the good in the world, also get the blame for all the bad?

Children being raped, and killed.  Floods that drown families. Fires that burn and kill those fighting them in order to protect others.  Long, lingering illnesses resulting in death.  Falls and bumps. Your college losing its baseball game.  The Holocaust.

If God gets the good, then shouldn’t he get the bad?

And what about the good to those who are not Christian, or of a particular belief?  When good things happen to them, when they prosper, is God still doing it?  Does God heal the pagan, the anti-theist as well as the good. When good things happen to bad people, did God do it?

Now, there are whole reams of paper devoted to these questions, and even more electrons. My purpose in bringing this up is not to discuss whether God did these or not.  I will say that early in the Old Testament, the ancient Jews gave God credit for both good things and bad.  However, my question to those believers who want us to praise God and, in essence, ignore or downplay the good people who worked and sweated and worried in order to help others, is more immediate.

Given all of the above, how do you know God did it?

Oh, yes, you could say it is all part of a divine plan. Other than the problems this causes for the idea of free will though, if this was just the carrying out of a plan, then God did not intervene at all, he just allowed what he set in motion to continue moving on, whether for good or bad.

Bottom line here is that I think the believers would do much better to show a little humility and recognize that they do not really know if God actually intervened in any specific event.  And then praise and recognize those humans who clearly did so.

I realize it is comforting to think that the God you worship controls all and has his hand over you.  The world is often scary and uncertain. But, that is no reason to ignore reason and humility and claim what you do not know. Especially when it creates injustice.

Let me end this by stating render unto humanity what is their due. Of course the pain and suffering, the ignorance and greed. But also the good that each does for others, both small and large.

Read Full Post »

God Wrote the Bible! The Word According to Prager.

I was in the process of writing a blog about something else when I came across this bit of news and couldn’t resist.

Dennis Prager, founder of Prager University, has written a book showing that the Bible was written by God!

Wowsa.  The founder of a University has written a well  and thoroughly  researched book showing that God wrote the Bible!

Never mind that his university has no brick and mortar buildings.  Nor any on-line courses.  Nor degrees. Nor certification.  No professors or teaching staff.  No required reading.  What is does have….ummm.  Oh yeah, it has a series of short videos narrated by various people on various subjects.   The ones I have watched have almost always contained serious mistakes and inaccuracies.

But, never mind.  I am sure that the book is of better quality than Prager’s university.

Now, I know that it is not really the thing to do to review a book solely based on what is being said about it.  But, this is from Fox News, so I am sure it must be right.

So, here is what  Fox said Prager said about his  book, The Rational Bible: Exodus.  Along with my commentary.

“The Bible is the “greatest book ever written,” according to Dennis Prager, a nationally syndicated conservative radio talk show host and writer…”

Well, technically, the Bible is a collection of books of varying types and styles.   Rather like a short story collection.

As for being the greatest, depends on your definition of greatest.  If you are talking about literary quality, that is debatable in regards to the Bible as a whole.  Now, there are certain books and passages that are indeed great.  And possibly the greatest.  But, those parts would have competition.  So, no cakewalk.

If you are talking about influence on the world and affecting world history, then you have a good case.  The Bible has been and still is highly influential.  However, the case could be made that the Qur’an is the greatest.  It too has had a rather sizeable impact on the world.  Of course, you could say that the Torah is the greatest since it predates both the Bible and the Qur’an and is the basis for both books.  Without the Torah neither book would exist.

So, there are definitely questions about this statement by Prager.

Next reported statement.  Or rather series of related statements.

“This is the first generation in human history … that is being raised godless.”

Considering that most people are Christian and are taught by their parents and relatives to believe in God, I think this is a great overstatement.  It also confuses schools being neutral, which involves being secular, with teaching that there is no God.  Not quite the same.  Further, I do not think many of us would like having God actually taught in the schools, not when it is not our god that is being taught.

“And the results I believe are the end of Western civilization as we know it.”

So Western civilization wasn’t done in by slavery, tyranny, basic enslavement of women, oppressive child labor, imperialism, and several other things.  But having a secular government that doesn’t teach god in school will do it iin.

Wowsa.

“People go to church or synagogue, they hear the Bible and most of them don’t know how to make heads or tails of it,” Prager said. “[Exodus] has the Ten Commandments and I am using reason alone to explain everything in there … [to] show how this is life transforming — that this was the source of wisdom in American for good reason,” he said.

Funny.  Those who wrote the Constittuion consulted a great many books to create this country. The Bible was not one of them.  In fact, the Constitution contradicts the Ten Commandments and is fundamentally in disagreement with it.  The freedom of religious belief and the requirement to have no other god before me don’t go too well together.  Roger Williams knew that.

But wait.  According to the headline of this Fox News piece Prager’s new book says that God wrote the Bible.  Where are his statements about that?  Oh, here it is.  At the end.

“The great way in which non-Jews are depicted in these five books and the negative way Jews are often, not always obviously… that is one of my many arguments for ultimately a divine author,” he said.

Wowsa again.  Might have to read this book again to see how he pulls that magic trick off.  The way non -Jews and Jews are depicted is evidence of a “divine author”.

Wowsa.

Read Full Post »

Another Reason Why Religion Will Never Die

Today I took my wife’s car in to get the oil changed.  They told me it would be about an hour before they could get to it, which I expected, and was properly prepared for, having brought a book to read.  However, the woman sitting across from me who was also waiting for her car had other ideas.  She talked to me.  Even when I was reading.  Even when I was texting.  And having been raised to be polite, I every now and then responded, especially when she asked direct questions about me.

However, from this frustrating experience (if Dante had experienced this he would have created another circle of Hell just for such people) I wound up making a couple of interesting observations that are now in the process of becoming the subject of this blog.

My epiphanies occurred when the mechanic came out holding the cabin air filter of her car.  It was absolutely filthy.  The mechanic asked the woman if she wanted to have it replaced.  When asked how much, he said 75 dollars.  The woman almost freaked.

She said she could not afford 75 dollars. That due to Hurricane Harvey she was already having to live in a Motel 6, that she had no extra money to pay for anything, couldn’t he just wash it and put it back in, that she had asthma and her medications were expensive, why was it so expensive, couldn’t see go and get it from someplace cheaper and have them put it in (the answer was no), if she paid for that she would wind up sleeping on the streets, and on for a bit more.  Upshot was that she told him to clean it off as best he could and put it back in since she couldn’t pay for it to be replaced.

Afterwards, she just sat there for a few moments.  While studiously reading I watched her; she looked as if she were about to cry.  Then she composed herself, and started talking to me again.  This time though it was about God and Jesus and how they control everything.  About how she knew she did not need to worry as they would look out for her and provide her what they thought was best for her, even if she may not always understand.

She went on in this manner for quite a while, mixed in with how could that small filter cost 75 dollars and about her medical issues .  What was interesting here is that also mixed in all of this is the fact that she came up with a way to take care of the problem.  She found out the cost of the filter at an auto parts store (I think 20 dollars) and, after a quick veer into human greed and it couldn’t be that hard to put the part in, she talked about a friend she had who was a shade tree mechanic who would put it in for free.

My first observation is that her religion allowed her to maintain control.  A loud and talkative and complaining control, but control nonetheless.  And, unlike what many atheists like to claim, despite her talk about God and Jesus controlling everything and being in charge, she took actions and formulated a plan to take care to the problem.   I would say that her beliefs allowed her to calm herself and not get caught up in a loop of worry and despair.  And, because of that, she was able to come up with a plan that sounded to me as if it should work.

Now I know many atheists would like to say that we should all be strong and not need the “crutch” of religion,  I am not one of those.  People are different.  Even strong people need crutches at times.  This, along with other reasons I have talked about elsewhere, is another reason why religion will never totally disappear.

My other observation came about as she continued to talk and talk and talk to me. This time about her religious beliefs.  About how God and Jesus were in control of everything.  We humans just think we are in control, but we are not   Satan and his demons (the fallen angels, one third of all angels) also had a role to play, but they were not in control.  They too often controlled our behaviors, but only because we let them and do not call upon God.

She related this down to even everyday tasks and decisions.  While she was doing so, at great length, I had a flashback to a paper I wrote while getting my MLA.  It was about the Iliad and the role the Greek gods played in it.  More specifically, did the Greeks actually believe that the gods took over and controlled people in the manner written in the Iliad.

 

What most attracted my attention during my reading of the Iliad is the prominent and varied roles of the gods in the story.   They are active in the activities of the war and often are the initiators of those actions; they act upon men for both good and evil; and they are used to explain sudden fortunes and misfortunes.  They also are the ones who make the final decisions on who wins and who loses, who lives and who dies, and on whether Troy will be overthrown and destroyed or not.

In reading the Iliad one gets the feeling that the Greeks did not believe that they controlled their fate, that instead larger forces determined their destiny.

When I wrote this paper I had no thought of applying this to modern times, considering this a relic of ancient thinking.  However, from what this woman said, which many religious people would also agree with, I saw that such thinking had not died out.  Her beliefs are a close relative to the same sort of thinking seen in the Iliad and the Odyssey.   Not the same, but close.  And both though arose from the same sources- that so much of life is a mystery, that we want one thing but behave another way despite ourselves;  and the realization that much of life is also beyond our control, which can and often does create great hardships on us.  Thinking in this way, whether it involves many or a single god, allows us a way to control our response, at least on an emotional level, to such events beyond our control.  As I noted in my first observation above.

 

One final note.  She quite often said I was a nice person and talked about the importance of God in people’s lives, that without God they are adrift and helpless.  Somehow I managed to avoid mentioning that I am an atheist.  And by doing so confirmed that I must be a nice guy after all.

Read Full Post »

God is Moral, God is All Powerful and Knowing. Take Your Pick.

I just recently came across this blog that perfectly highlights one of the reasons I eventually became an atheist – the philosophical and moral problems in believing in an omniscient, omnipotent, moral being, especially one who is concerned about our welfare and well being.

In “No This Isn’t All Part of God’s Plan So Lets Stop Blaming It on Him”, by Dr. Benjamin L Corey, Dr. Corey tries to salvage the moral part of that description of God.  Unstated, and, perhaps, unrecognized, is that he does so at the expense of an idea of a God being all knowing and all powerful.

Dr. Corey starts off by discussing why he has a problem with those who, in the face of a tragic loss, say it is all part of God’s plan.  This bit here does a good job of summarizing this problem:

Not only does that line fail to bring me comfort, it also seems to impugn God’s character. The idea that a loving God would have a “plan” that involved wiping out thousands in earthquakes and tsunamis, giving people cancer, parents losing children, car accidents, trauma, abuse, and all manner of pain and suffering, is an insane idea.

Think about it: if this is all “according to God’s plan” and every life event is being directed and controlled by him, he’s really bad at making plans.

In some of my saddest seasons of loss, people have come along side of me and said, “Well, we’ll never really understand God’s plan.”

And every time I hear it, through my tears and suffocating sadness I just want to reply, “No shit, Sherlock.” How could a plan that involves so much heartache be understood?

………

Sometimes we’ll say God planned the suffering for our benefit. Other times we’ll be tricked into believing that God planned the suffering to chastise us for not measuring up. Yet, no matter how we try to rationalize or explain it, we end up at the same spot: if this is all part of God’s plan, God is the author and cause of evil and suffering

 

I agree with Dr. Corey on this. I have never understood how a good God could cause evil and suffering and still be considered a good God. However, I will say that the Old Testament writers had no problem in doing so.  God afflicted Saul with madness. He hardened the pharoah’s heart. He sent plagues to punish. He sent disasters to punish. As with Job, God could take away a spouse, children, wealth and home and health…and yet was still good and moral.

I believe that there were three reasons that these ancient writers thought this.  One was the mystery bit that God hits Job with at the end – were you there when I made the morning, shut the door to the seas, laid the foundation of the earth.  In other words, God is so great and we so small that we will never be able to understand his reasons. But, take his word for it, he is a Good God.

Another is that many ancients believed that those who suffered somehow deserved it. That is still another answer that many still believe, although I do not think as many as in these ancient times (during early Christianity, doctors did not look for physical causes of diseases, but, instead, looked for how that person had sinned and so called down this affliction from God, and what they could do to appease God – it is one reason that Muslim doctors became the more trusted.)

Finally, I think that the ancients believed that whoever had the power had the right to say what was good and what was wrong.  A more primitive version of the modern position that God is morality.

Over time though, societies and cultures grew and changed.  Ideas were tested and ideas discarded.  Among those were ideas about morality.  Today, the idea of might makes right is abhorrent for most people.  And the idea that all people who suffer deserve it is likewise seen by most as absurd (birth defects anyone).

Which leaves only the mystery one still surviving – that God has a reason that would make what seems evil into good and right. But, unfortunately, we are too limited in our understanding to ever be able to see this.

 

Dr. Corey quite rightly rejects this. But, in doing so he has also rejected the ideas of an all knowing and all powerful God, and either doesn’t realize it or chooses not to acknowledge this.  Here is his answer to the problem of evil and a moral God.

 

Instead, when we acknowledge that really hard and sad life events did not come from the hand of God, and were not in any way planned by or ordained by God, I believe we’re invited to get to know a God who joins in our suffering instead of causing it.

………………………………………………………………………………

Instead of trying to rationalize our suffering as being from the hand of God– thus making God an agent to be petrified of instead of a creator to be loved, I think we should be quicker to acknowledge that, no, a lot of what we experience in life isn’t God’s plan at all.

……………………………………………………………………………….

Because you see, if it’s outside of God’s heart and desires, God grieves that loss and brokenness with us– because it’s his hopes and dreams for our lives that end up getting smashed as well.

…………………………………………………………………………………

Instead of this idea of God having a master plan that meticulously dictates and controls what happens in our lives (often referred to a blueprint theology), I believe that God has hopes, dreams, and desires for our stories. When those things come true, he rejoices and celebrates with us.

But when those hopes and dreams get smashed to bits, instead of saying “Oh, by the way– I actually did that,” I believe God sits in the dark and mourns those broken dreams with us.

And when the tears have subsided long enough to begin to hear his voice clearly, I’m convinced he’s also whispering, “And I know this can’t replace your loss, but when you’re ready I’d love to partner with you to try to make something good come out of all this.”

 

First off, notice that God no longer knows what is going to happen: “…his hopes and dreams for our lives that end up getting smashed as well” and “were not in any way planned or ordained by God”.  In other words, God is not all knowing.

Next off, not all powerful.  God cannot stop these events from happening and once happened he cannot “replace your loss”.

So, Dr. Corey gets to keep the moral part of the descriptor of God, but at the expense of God not being all powerful and all knowing.  And that’s fine. If you want to define God like that then our discussion should be on how limited is God, and when do those limits approach describing a being who cannot be described as God any longer.

And , truth to be told, if you want to have an all-powerful and all knowing God who does not care about morals and morality, I think you have a stronger case too.

 

Take your pick.

 

Read Full Post »

An Atheist’s Faith – Part 1 of 2

My faith as an atheist lies in two areas. The first will be one in which many atheists will disagree with me. The other, though, will probably have more widespread acceptance among atheists. This blog though is about the first one.

First Statement of Faith: God does not exist.

Now that I have admitted that I believe this on faith and made some conservative religious types very happy, let me expand on that and make them unhappy.

I do not believe that an omnipotent, omniscient, moral being exists due to the fact that there is no evidence for his existence and to the fact that there are problems, both philosophically and ethically, with such a being creating what we see around us. However, I cannot prove that he does not exist.

In regards to a lack of evidence, this alone is not proof. I know that the standard (and correct) counter-argument to this is that you cannot prove a negative and, therefore, those claiming something exists have to prove that it does. My problem though, and why I say it is a statement of faith, is twofold.

First, just because a belief may be the most rational one to hold does not mean that it is correct. Our evaluation of what is rational to believe and what is irrational to believe can, has, and does change as we learn and experience more. Continental drift was rejected by the vast majority of scientists for many long years, and with good reason. Evolution was not believed to be valid for many long years too, and the reasoning for its rejection were also logical and rational for a long time. The same with the heliocentric model of our solar system. All of these, based on what was known at the time, and using perfectly good logic and reasonings, were correctly rejected. However, their rejection by most did not mean that they were not true.

Second, and related to the first, for this lack of evidence to be a strong argument against the existence of God, or of anything, it should be linked to other problem that makes the reality of God impossible. To phrase this another way, some existences in the line for proof are more likely than others.

For example, an invisible hippo living in my swimming pool would violate the laws of physics and economics (I would be even more broke than I am now if I had to actually feed a hippo). However, the existence of a unicorn is not physiologically impossible, does not violate any known laws. And, who knows, perhaps we will eventually genetically engineer one or one might evolve due to a changing environment. The point here is that some posited creatures whose existence is without evidence are impossible, while others are possible but lacking in evidence.

God’s possible existence is more like that of the unicorn than the invisible hippo. He is a possible creature rather than an impossible one.

Now, I know many will point to God’s attributes, such as omniscience and omnipotence (which includes the ability to violate the laws of physics, chemistry and all the other sciences) and say that such a creature is clearly impossible. However, that is overlooking one of the basic traits of such a God – he/she/it exists outside of time and space. Since God is not part of our universe and did not derive from it then he/she/it is not bound by its laws and regularities. This trait of God’s is as essential to God’s definition as the horn is for the unicorn. Remove either and the creature no longer exists.

Since God exists outside of space and time and is therefore not limited by natural law and, in fact, created them, then the violation of natural laws are not prima fascia evidence against his existence. Again, unless such a lack of evidence is linked to an impossibility then the lack of evidence is lacking in force as proof against something existence. It does not support the idea of God’s existence, but neither does it, by itself, constitute evidence that God does not exist.

After all, at one time we had no evidence coelacanths existed and they were widely, almost universally, believed to be extinct for 66 million years. But they do exist, as was discovered in 1938. Until it was found scientists were perfectly correct in doubting its existence since there was no evidence of it still existing. However, as the discovery of it in 1938 shows, they would have been incorrect in stating that this lack of evidence constituted proof that the coelacanths no longer existed. Perhaps God, like the coelacanths, exists in a remote and inaccessible place.

Then there is the problem of free will. How can free will exist if God already knows what you are going to do (part of being omniscient). Even if he/she/it does not control your actions and thoughts something obviously shapes them so that he/she/it is capable of knowing all. If free will really existed then God should not be omniscient.

Of course there are a couple of ways around that. One I will discuss a bit later. The other though is to concede that free will may not exist and modify God’s plan for salvation, heaven and hell. Or, for that matter, modify the claim that God is omniscient to have it limited by a certain element of uncertainty. In other words, knowing everything God can make very informed guesses at what a person will do and be right ALMOST all of the time. I have seen both of these arguments used by theologians and believers.

Another issue is justice. Life is unfair and unjust and how can a good and just God create and sustain such a universe? However, this one is a two edged argument against God, cutting against the atheist as much as the theist. This lack of justice in this life can be taken as evidence of some sort of an afterlife and a God. After all, we have an inborn need for justice and fairness. Life does not give us either fairness or justice. Therefore to satisfy this need, to right this wrong, there has to be something more than just this uncaring universe and this lone life.

Just as our need for food indicates that food does exist, even if we cannot find any now, so too does our need for justice and fairness indicate that something must exist to provide them. God provides just such a remedy for that hunger in the next life.

From there though we move to the related problem of contradictions between the traits of God and what we see in the universe. God is moral, and yet there is great evil in the universe; very bad things happen to good people all the time. Although those believers who have dealt with the Problem of Evil have come up with many different answers, all of them except one fails. The one that does not fail – the Book of Job’s answer. God is too great for our understanding, so great that he sees the good in what is happening or the reasons for why evil is necessary when we are unable to. And, truth to tell, this is a reasonable and rational possibility. One that also holds up for the question of God’s omniscience and human free will.

During my many debates with creationists when explaining why an unknown that has no scientific explanation (as of yet) does not constitute evidence for God. I pointed out that there are actually three other possible solutions to the question besides God did it. I won’t go over what the other two are (those who are interested can check it out at my blog “Turning Science Into Non-Science”). However, the third possibility is the one of interest in regards to the problems of God’s existence and why some element of faith exists in stating that God does not exist.

3) There is a natural explanation but we will never be able to solve it because we just do not have the intelligence to do so. For example imagine one of our early ancestors – possibly Homo Erectus – sitting on the shores of the ocean. She notices the tides and wonders what causes them. However her intelligence is too limited for her to ever understand how the gravitational effects of the moon and sun cause the tides. Because of this even though there is a natural explanation she might conclude a god caused the tides when taking baths.

This same argument holds for the question of evil and of free will. We are limited creatures and, perhaps, unable to see the very real solution to reconciling evil and free will to God’s omnipotence and omniscience.

Let me also say that while the existence of God has many different issues, I do not know of any belief system or outlook on the universe that does not have issues and problems – even atheism.
One such problem is that of existence.

Why does anything exist rather than nothing? I am not talking of the existence of the universe, which could be answered by some of the many different multiverse hypotheses floating around; but why does anything exist at all? An uncreated being might be one answer. Of course, then the question comes up of how did God come about. But note the definition of God as uncreated and eternal. So, it is a possibility that cannot be ruled out solely by logic and reason.

Also there is the question of what constitutes evidence? Most atheists (including myself) use science, reason, and logic in regards to answering the question of God’s existence. However, does all evidence have to be empirical and scientific or are other sorts of evidence of equal importance in areas outside of how the universe works? In which case, science and logic and reason would limit how God could and has manifested and worked within the universe, but does not eliminate the existence of such a being.

Personal experience and emotions are often used (and often justifiably so) in making decisions in our lives. Martin Gardner, one of the primary founders of the modern skeptic movement, believed that the emotional reasons were enough for him to make a leap of faith and believe in God. And, while I can bring up some arguments against this, they do not rise to the level of absolute proof.

Consider the limitations to reason and logic contained in the fact – the fact – that I cannot absolutely prove that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. It always has, but that does not mean that it always will. Perhaps it will go supernova on us. Perhaps the laws of the universe will change. There is really no logical proof that this will not happen..

There comes an end to all logic and all reason. A point by which we have to take it on faith. Even reason and logic tells s this is true when you use these tools to seek an answer to whether they will always work. Just because they have in so many areas does not mean they always will. A bridge before it collapses may have had millions of cars and trucks cross it, yet despite that history of success, it still failed. Without access to look beyond or beneath reason and logic we have no way of determining whether their girders are still strong enough to support our endeavors or whether they are on the verge of collapsing

So, bottom line for me – it is a leap of faith to not believe that God exists. However, this leap of faith is a much much smaller leap than the one involved in believing God does exist. Whereas the biggest unknowable question for me is that of why something rather than nothing exists, for the theist it is the multiple questions of evil and free will and why there is no evidence for God’s existence. My leap of faith in regards to not believing in God is a bigger leap than my belief that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow, but still smaller for me than believing in a God with all of these problems and issues. In fact, my leap is just a short hop compared to the large leap of the believer.

Read Full Post »

Why I Am an Atheist

Looking over my blogs I see that I have dealt with various aspects of the various issues that caused me to become an atheist, but I have never tried to provide a concise, one blog summary of those reasons.   So, while this might or might not fit the definition of concise, it is just one blog.  Besides which, I have twice in the last week been accused of being a Christian.   While I do not necessarily consider this to be an insult, it is very inaccurate.

1) Problems with the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient, and moral being.   

This was actually the starting point for my journey to an atheistic position. I had some severe problems with the morality of God as depicted and understood in a literal reading of the Old Testament.   A more liberal reading and interpretation helped for a time.   But I still had problems with the whole heaven and hell thing.   A universalist view helped some with that, but I was still left with the question of why is there so much evil in the world if there is a moral all powerful and all knowing being?

The whole problem is made even greater by the problem of free will.  If God is omniscient, if God already knows what you are going to do then in what sense can you be said to have free will?   And without free will, then how can it be moral for God to hold you accountable for your sins?   And why create us and the world with so much suffering if he already know how it all comes out; why not just skip straight to the desired result?

Now, while this is a problem and is part of the reason I became an atheist, I will admit that it is not proof that there is no moral, omnipotent, omniscient being – God. The reason for this is that, in religion just as it is in science, it is permissible to say “I don’t know” to a question. Especially since we are talking about the reasons of a being whose intelligence, foresight, and power dwarfs ours by many orders of magnitude.   After all, this message was the essence of the book of Job.

In my blog “Turning Science into Non-Science” I discuss why God did it is not a good answer when science does not understand or have an answer for some aspect of the natural world.    The reason is that God did it is not the only possible answer to a lack of knowledge.   In this blog I laid out three other possible answers.

 

“1) There is a natural explanation but we have not come up with the evidence needed to show us how to answer it or come up with the right way to look at the problem to solve it.  Some examples would be Plate Tectonics and Einstein’s Theory of Relativity.

2) There is a natural explanation but we do not have the tools needed to solve it.  Examples are the Germ Theory of Disease (microscope) and most of Astronomy (telescope).

3)  There is a natural explanation but we will never be able to solve it because we just do not have the intelligence to do so.  For example, imagine one of our early ancestors – possibly Homo Erectus – sitting on the shores of the ocean. She notices the tides and wonders what causes them.  However her intelligence is too limited for her to ever understand how the gravitational effects of the moon and sun cause the tides.  Because of this even though there is a natural explanation she might conclude a god caused the tides when taking baths.”

Please note possible answer number three.   That same reasoning I used here also can apply in regards to God and the problem of evil.  So, because of this, to my mind, the moral problems inherent in an omnipotent, omniscient God is indicative, but not definitive.

2) Lack of Evidence For God’s Existence  

In addition to the moral and other problems with an omnipotent and omniscient being, there was also the problem of a lack of evidence for his existence.   I knew that people cited many different evidences for his existence, but I found none of them convincing.   Of course, a popular and widely used one is the existence of the universe and of the many gaps in our understanding of it.   In fact, this is so widely used that I will deal with this particular “proof” separately.

Other evidence often cited for God’s existence is prophecy.   This is especially prominent within Christian circles.  However, other than a very few easily made “prophecy”, I have yet to find a clearly stated prophecy made and written down before the event prophesized. In regards to my statement about the easily made prophecy, I say this because they involve prophecies about the destruction of Judah by Babylon. Any person living then who was aware of what was happening to the north of Judah – Babylon expanding their way – would have been able to prophesize this. Further, I would imagine that those prophecies made by the less astute about God saving Judah were then quickly forgotten after Judah’s conquest and their writings neither saved nor remembered.

Christians often talk about the many prophecies related to Jesus, yet there are several problems with this evidence. First, were the stories about Jesus – such as his birth for example – created in order to “fulfill” those prophecies? If so, then it is not a case of Jesus fulfilling the many prophecies made about the Messiah, but rather, a case of well meaning and true believers filling in the blanks and smoothing out the difficulties with stories that, while not true, they believed must be true.

An equally serious problem, if not more so, of these prophecies is do they mean what Christians think they do.   When I started investigating and questioning my Christian beliefs many, many years ago one of the first questions I had in regards to these, and other, prophecies is “what did the Jews believe these passages to mean”.   In looking into this I found out that there are several disagreements with what specific words mean as well as how they should be translated.   Many of these prophecies were believed by the Jews to be referring to the nation of Israel for example and not to Jesus at all.    For those interested, two good books on this are The Meaning of the Bible:  What the Jewish Scriptures and Christian Old Testament Can Teach Us by Amy-Jill Levine and Douglas A. Knight and The Jewish Annotated New Testament, edited by Amy-Jill Levine and Marc Zvi Brettler.

A final evidence often cited is that of personal experience. For me, the fact that all religions, and even many atheists, experience the mystical but differ on  how to interpret that experience was evidence that, while this might be good for the individual concerned, it did not constitute evidence for anyone else; nor for someone who was seriously questioning his beliefs and faith.

Again, though this lack of evidence is strongly indicative I do not consider it conclusive. While less than many believe, there is some truth to the saying that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

3)  No Necessity for God to Explain the Universe and Its Workings  

Arguments for God’s existence based on something about the universe and how it works usually take two forms. The first typically involves some aspect of the universe that we do not fully understand. Both the origin of life and consciousness are two that are frequently cited.    However, just because we do not know how something came about does not mean that we will never know.   Ignorance is not evidence of anything other than ignorance.   To use this as evidence for something is flawed logic and puts a person in the very precarious position of basing their beliefs on ignorance; talk about a foundation of shifting sands! My blog “Turning Science into Non-Science” that I referenced above deals with this in more depth

The other form this question often takes is “what came before the big bang?” When asked there is usually the assumption that if you don’t know, then God must have done so. However, remember that ignorance is not evidence for anything other than ignorance. Further, in this case there are several ideas how our universe could have started (most involving some variant of multiple universes) that are totally consistent with our current scientific theories, in this case quantum theory and relativity theory.

When this is pointed out, those who would defend and continue to use this argument for God often reply that there is no evidence for these alternative ideas being correct. And they are right, there is none. However, when making this observation they are overlooking its true importance. The mere fact that there are viable scientific ideas about what existed before the big bang and what caused our universe to come into existence shows that there are alternatives to the God did it; and since that is so, then ignorance of what came before the big bang does not constitute evidence for God’s existence.

And, again, this is strongly indicative, but not conclusive in regards to God’s existence. There are ideas about God that would fit with all of the above that cannot be ruled out.

4)  Existence

There is, however, one other question used as evidence for God’s existence. It is a question about the universe, but one that I do not believe science will ever have the answer for- why does something exist instead of nothing? This is not the same as how did our universe come into existence. It is a question about something much more basic-why does anything exist at all?

To my mind, I think this to be an unanswerable question. However, the problem I have with this question being used as evidence of God is that the question then comes up of who created God? Usually the answer winds up being one of definition – and I thoroughly distrust word definition arguments whether for or against God (and there are some for both). Unless the definition is grounded in something empirical, it is, to my mind, more a word game than a reality.

Summation

In the end, there was not just one reason why I came to the conclusion that God did not exist.   It was the combination of these several problems with the idea of God, that while each by themselves are not conclusive, taken in total seem to strongly indicate that God does not exist.

And, if in the end, I turn out to be wrong, that he did exist then I can take comfort from the fact that if God had placed any importance on people believing in his existence then he would have made the evidence of it much clearer and more open to rational inquiry.     And if he is a moral being as most believers say, then I will not get too heavily dinged for my unbelief.

 

Read Full Post »