Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
by
Mark Thomas
Just about everyone is an atheist when it comes to other gods the gods that other people believe in or that nobody believes in anymore. Im an atheist about all gods because there's no reliable evidence for any god or even for Jesus. There is also e!tensive evidence that Jesus and all gods are fictional characters myths created mainly by primitive people who had little understanding of how our universe operates. "e all like myths and other stories but we don't have to believe them.
math philosophy and democracy. >nfortunately for humankind these ideas were largely forgotten for almost two thousand years while religion took control and /ristotle was revered as the source of supposedly scientific knowledge.
:?<<. +ver the centuries millions were killed in religious wars or for heresy 0which often meant simply being the @wrongA type of *hristian9. -ometimes it was more e!plicit heresy which threatened the church's lock on truth. The Italian freethinker #ucilio Ianini suggested that humans evolved from apes. In :?:2 he was tried in Erance and found guilty of atheism and witchcraft. (e had his tongue cut out he was hanged and his body was burned as was customary with all heretics. -i! years later the Erench Jarlement even decreed that criticism of /ristotle was punishable by death and many more heretics were burned. In -pain the In$uisition killed over 13< <<< during a period of four centuries. =alileo no doubt knew what he was up against. Eor the crime of heresy the In$uisition could put him in a dungeon torture or even e!ecute him. -o after a long trial this proud G< yearDold man obediently got on his knees and dutifully recanted. 4ut even after recanting he was still sentenced to house arrest for the rest of his life. The *atholic *hurch officially condemned heliocentrism 1: years later when Jope /le!ander III banned all books that affirmed 5arths motion. (owever even as powerful as the *hurch was they could not hold back the tidal wave of scientific discovery. The *hurch eventually lost its battle over our view of the universe but it only took them over three hundred years to admit it. In :;;8 after :8 years of deliberations they grudgingly noted that =alileo had been right in supporting the *opernican theories. 5ven then they ascribed his genius to =od @who stirring in the depths of his spirit stimulated him anticipating and assisting his intuitions.A 4ut no such reprieve has been given for 4runo. (is writings are still on the Iaticans list of forbidden te!ts and Jope John Jaul II refused to even apologiFe for the *atholic *hurch's torture killing of 4runo. =alileo and others started something big empirical science. Thru 66 science and the scientific method we have come to a good understanding of the workings of the world and universe around us. The weather lightning thunder the planets and stars disease and life itself all function based on fairly well understood principles. / god doesnt control themB the physical properties of matter and energy control the universe. This principle is at the center of naturalism the idea that only matter and energy e!ist and they have properties that are repeatable understandable and $uantifiable within the limits of $uantum mechanics. ,aturalism is founded on the ancient =reek philosophy of materialism. "e take naturalism so for granted that we typically dont realiFe that it is based on several articles of faith. This faith however is $uite different from religious faith. This faith is based on overwhelming past e!perience and results. It is the faith thatK
There is an e!ternal world that e!ists independently of our minds. There are $uantifiable natural laws that describe how things happen in this world and we can attempt to understand them. These natural laws wont change when were not lookingB the universe isnt totally chaotic.
-o far this faith has been wellDfounded as shown by the amaFing accomplishments of modern science engineering and medicine.
created it too. "here did humans come from) / god created us and in his own image to boot. Eor almost all believers it's not &ust @a godA that they believe in. They believe in a particular god 0or set of gods9. Celigious philosophers have tried for thousands of years to prove that there is a god or many gods. They have come up with many arguments. "e will look at these arguments. 4ecause I live in a largely JudeoD*hristian society when I refer to =od with a capital N= I will be referring to the JudeoD*hristian god %ahweh 0a.k.a. Jehovah9 and probably the Muslim god /llah. This god is male and is typically defined as having free will and being omniscient 0allDknowing9 omnipotent 0allDpowerful9 omnibenevolent 0allDgood9 perfect eternal and unchanging. This god also created the universe and is separate from the physical world while still intervening in the physical world. /fter all what good is a god that doesnt do anything) Most of the arguments I use here will also apply to most of the other thousands of gods created by humankind and most of the thousands of religions. I certainly dont know all of them so I will deal with most of the ma&or religions and their god0s9. I will also closely link god0s9 and religion. I do this advisedly because for most people one could not e!ist without the other. In addition if there were a god I would think that this god would be able to appropriately guide the religions created for it. There is at least one religion essential 4uddhism as thought to have been taught by 4uddha which does not have a god or any supernatural component. To keep things a bit simpler here the arguments I make regarding religion will probably not apply to this 4uddhism or any other religion without a supernatural component. (owever almost all religions have grown from belief in god0s9 and people's narcissistic wish to believe that the universe was created &ust for their benefit. "e need to define @atheistA and @atheism.A / theist is a person who believes in a god or gods. The =reek prefi! @aDA means withoutB thus an atheist is without belief and doesn't believe in any gods and atheism is &ust the lack of belief in any gods. /theists can simply say that the e!istence of any god hasn't been reliably proven. Eor many atheism is also the conclusion that no gods e!ist based on the complete lack of reliable evidence for any god. I take the strong atheist position depending on how we define @=odA we can prove that it does not e!ist and I will use the typical definition &ust given for the *hristian god %ahweh. "hy am I doing this) Is it &ust because I want to poke holes in peoples beliefs so that we can take away what makes them happy) ,o Im doing this because I want to know what is true be intellectually honest and be open to reality. /nd I hope that you have similar reasons. This article is an argument in support of reason rationality intellectual honesty and truth. "e must know the truth to act wisely and truth comes from physical reality. I put forth many of the reasons why atheism is true based on physical reality so they
can be e!amined and evaluated. I also show why atheism and the philosophical e!tension (umanism are important to the future of humankind. The arguments for the e!istence of god0s9 fall into several areas. I have arranged them into these categoriesK
Mysticism and Cevelation @-cientificA *laims #ove and Morality /ppeals to /uthority Jrophesy and Miracles /ppeals to Eaith #ogic and 5motion
/t the center of science is intellectual honesty. In order for ideas to be accepted in science they must be supported by sufficient evidence and arguments. /nybody can change what is accepted in science if they can put forth evidence and arguments sufficient to show that their new idea is better. In fact the larger the change created by an individual the more that individual is honored. This is why =alileo ,ewton 'arwin and 5instein are honored because their ideas radically changed our views of the universe. "ith this process of change science can grow and improve our understanding of the universe. *onversely most religions are stuck with unchanging @holyA words from a book or founder.
e!periment to show that its wrong. Eor every possible set of a test and a result we could simply say @/ god did it.A (ow did 5arth and the universe begin and why do they appear to be so old) @/ god did it.A (ow did life start and why does nature seem so balanced) @/ god did it.A +nce again why does anything happen) If we say that a god did it there is no reason or opportunity to learn how the world really works. If we had stayed with a god as the cause of all events our modern culture would have been impossible. "e would have no real science engineering or medicine. "e would still be living in the 'ark /ges. The @god did itA or @god of the gapsA argument has probably been around since humans first started creating gods. It's the basic premise behind all the @scientificA arguments for the e!istence of a god. (ere's what the logic looks like when applied to two common weather phenomenaK #ightning and thunder are terrifyingP They must be caused by something else 0that we dont really understand either9. This something else must be a god because we cant come up with a better e!planation. The obvious main fault of @god of the gapsA is its supposition that current lack of knowledge on a sub&ect means that it cant be known that @unknownA means @unknowable.A If this applies to an individual its the argument from personal incredulity because a person doesn't understand something then he thinks that the sub&ect must be unknown unknowable or false. "hen faced with an unknown let's first note that it's perfectly +. to say @I don't know A or @"e don't know A &ust as it would have been when people in the past asked @"hat causes lightning or tornadoes)A or @"hy do things fall to the ground)A or countless other $uestions for which we now have straightforward scientific e!planations. +bviously &ust because we don't know how something happened does not mean that a god did it. Celegating an e!planation of something to a god is easyB a person doesn't have to think much. Einding an e!planation with science often involves hard work and analysis. "e can't simply e!plain something mysterious by appealing to something more mysterious for which there is less evidence. @=od did itA is not an e!planation. It tells no more than saying @-anta did it.A Eor the fringe areas of knowledge that we dont understand we are using the tools of science to learn the secrets of nature. /s we have all seen science has made e!cellent advances in our understanding of the universe and will no doubt continue to do so. There may also be things that are too difficult or impossible for us to understand but that doesn't mean that some god is behind them. There are three common @god of the gapsA types of arguments for the e!istence of a god. "e haveK 0:9 Eirst *ause 089 /rgument Erom 'esign 0including Intelligent 'esign9 and 019 origin of consciousness.
The red shift of almost all gala!ies getting greater as their distance increases. This shows that the gala!ies are flying away from each other at greater speeds at greater distances. The cosmic microwave background radiation. This is a remnant of the radiation from the 4ig 4ang and has cooled over time to the e!act temperature predicted. The variations in the cosmic microwave background radiation. These variations fit theoretical predictions and were caused by $uantum differences near the start of 4ig 4ang. The proportions of the lightest elements and isotopes. This helps show that the calculations for nuclear interactions immediately following the 4ig 4ang are correct. The changes in gala!ies as we look further away 0and thus back in time9 with distant gala!ies more primitive and having fewer heavy elements. This shows some of the changes in the universe since the 4ig 4ang and confirms the deep time of the universe. The change in the apparent speed of type :a supernova as we look back in time with distant supernova e!ploding more slowly. This shows that the light has been stretched out by the e!pansion of space over billions of years.
The physicist and cosmologist /lan =uth of MIT has put forth the scientific theory called Inflation that the 4ig 4ang was &ust the result of a random $uantum event called a vacuum fluctuation with no cause created out of $uantum indeterminacy and with a total energy of Fero. 5ven tho this doesnt make sense in the ,ewtonian physics of our e!perience of the world it does make sense in $uantum mechanics and 5insteins general relativity. In relativity gravity is negative energy and matter is positive energy. 4ecause the two seem to be e$ual in absolute total value our observable universe appears balanced to the sum of Fero. +ur universe could thus have come into e!istence without violating conservation of mass and energy with the matter of the universe condensing out of the positive energy as the universe cooled and gravity created from the negative energy. "hen energy condenses into matter e$ual parts of matter and antimatter are created which annihilate each other to form energy. (owever there appears to be a slight imbalance to the process which results in matter dominating over antimatter. There is e!cellent e!perimental and theoretical evidence to support Inflation Theory. "e may eventually determine that Inflation Theory is wrong or incomplete and we may never be able to completely understand the actual beginning. It could be that we're not smart enough or that the physical science necessary is not possible for us to do. 4ut that doesnt mean that a god caused the 4ig 4ang any more than our past lack of understanding of weather meant that a god caused lightning.
There are many wellDrespected physicists such as -tephen (awking #awrence .rauss -ean M. *arroll Iictor -tenger Michio .aku Cobert /.J. Matthews and ,obel laureate Erank "ilcFek who have created scientific models where the 4ig 4ang and thus the entire universe could arise from nothing but $uantum fluctuations of vacuum energy via natural processes. #awrence .rauss has shown that the positive energy of the universe is divided into about G<R dark energy 1<R dark matter and about :R regular matter such as atoms everything we see. /s he noted @"hy such a universe in which we're so irrelevant would be made for us is beyond me.A
The comple!ity of life and the universe re$uire a cause that is not part of this natural universe. Irreducible comple!ity shows that the odds against natural causes for certain processes are too great so a designer is necessary. The physical laws re$uire a lawgiver.
The laws of physics were fineDtuned for life. -cience cant e!plain all the features of life. +ur system of life on 5arth was designed. The 8nd law of thermodynamics proves that evolution is impossible. "hat they really claim is @=od did itPA
#et's start with the apparent design of the universe and use a story of -ir Isaac ,ewton as an e!ample. / deeply religious man ,ewton was struck by the order that he observed in the orbits of the planets with all of them in the same plane. (e could think of no reason for this so he attributed it to =od. +f course now thru science we understand the gravitational dynamics in the formation of solar systems fairly well and no longer need to invoke a god. -cience is similarly showing how the rest of the universe works and eliminating the need for theistic e!planations. ,ow lets look at the 8nd law of thermodynamics. This states that any closed system will tend toward disorder. (owever it does not apply to the 5arth because we live in an open system with energy constantly streaming in from our sun. This is the energy that powers almost all life on our planet. Thus the 8 nd law of thermodynamics does not apply to evolution or any living being. ,e!t lets consider the laws of physics. They are really &ust our current best $uantified e!planations or descriptions of how matter and energy behave not anything like manD made laws. These descriptions have changed in the past 0e.g. 5SM* 89 and will likely change in the future. "e currently dont know why the parameters of matter and energy have certain values but that doesnt mean that some god set them that way. The simple solution to the $uestion of the source of the laws of physics is to accept them as brute fact with no source. It could also be that there are almost countless universes each with different selfDconsistent laws and constants. -tring theory for e!ample allows for :<H<< possible universes. If some of them e!ist and even one of those allowed life then that would be our universe. This is known as the /nthropic Jrinciple. In other words if our universe had different laws we would not e!ist to see it and thus we naturally live in one that allows us to e!ist. ,ote also that gods are 0pretty much by definition9 e!empt from any laws of physics. -o positing a god as the source of the universe can ignore any laws of physics. If it were true that a god set up the universe specifically for us he certainly waited a long time for the result. The universe has been around for about :3 billion years. It took about nine billion years before 5arth was formed from the remnants of supernova stars. -ingle celled bacteria were forming ecosystems about a billion years after that as shown by the evidence for 5arths history in its rocks and fossils. Eor about two and a half billion years life consisted of only single celled organisms. #ife evolved and became more comple! with multiDcelled organisms. It then took another billion years for fish
reptiles and mammals to appear. Then humans =ods supposed reason for the whole creation finally came along within the last 8<< <<< years or so on one planet orbiting one of the septillions of stars. This seems like a lengthy comple! massive and apparently natural process for an omnipotent being that could have simply snapped everything 0or &ust one magic planet9 into e!istence. >sing a god as the source of the laws of physics &ust doesnt make sense. +nce again religionists are trying to e!plain one mystery with a bigger mystery. >ltimately an @intelligent designerA of the universe or order or life e!plains nothing. It simply moves the lack of knowledge up one level because this @intelligent designerA is left without an e!planation unless you posit either that it always e!isted or a @more intelligent designerA of the @intelligent designerA ... ad infinitum and ad nauseum. If it always e!isted then what caused it to go an infinite amount of time and abruptly decide to create the universe) Thus the @intelligent designerA answer is plagued with two insurmountable infinity problems. It's important to note that the universe was not designed for lifeB in practically the entire universe conditions are e!tremely hostile to life. #ife is e!ceedingly sparse in the universe even if it e!ists on every planet and moon. /ll we do know is that life e!ists on one oasis 5arth. /ny sort of life that we can imagine only has a chance on what is likely only a small percentage of planets or moons. Most of the universe is nearly empty and almost all of the visible 0non dark9 matter is in stars or nebulae. -aying that the universe is made &ust for us is like an individual arguing that the whole universe 5arth life the human species all her ancestors and her genes were created &ust for her. @/fter all A she could say @look at the odds against everything being &ust as it was. My god must have created everything &ust so I could e!ist.A The core argument in Intelligent 'esign is the fact that evolutionary biologists cant yet fully e!plain all the features of lifeB therefore I' claims that life must have been designed by some intelligent being. This is a @god of the gapsA argument and it is scientifically logically and historically flawed. I' is scientifically flawed because it violates the ground rules of science by allowing supernatural 0meaning outside of nature9 causation. I' is logically flawed in two ways. The first logical flaw in I' is that it's based on a lack of knowledge e!plaining gaps in knowledge by invoking the magic of an unknown 0perhaps supernatural9 being. #ike all @god of the gapsA arguments I' is not falsifiable cant even be tested and says nothing about the moral $ualities of this unknown being god or gods. The second logical flaw is in the assumption it makes that because something is supposedly very highly unlikely something else must have designed it. "hat I' proponents blatantly ignore because they take the e!istence of their god as a given is the fact that this unknown designer must be even more comple! and thus less probable than what I' was invoked to e!plain. The basic $uestion is thus @"ho designed the designer)A This argument dates back to 'avid (ume in the :G<<'s. Cichard 'awkins calls it the @ultimate 4oeing G3G gambitA because it shows the fatal
weakness of Ered (oyle's I' argument that the @probability of life originating on 5arth is no greater than the chance that a hurricane sweeping through a scrapyard would have the luck to assemble a 4oeing G3G.A / designer god would have to be immeasurably more comple! than a G3G an ultimate 4oeing G3G. I' is historically flawed because science has shown e!cellent progress in e!plaining the world around us. /s professor of physics 4ob Jark wrote @/ll of science is built on territory once occupied by gods. Is there some boundary at which science is supposed to stop)A. There is nothing to show that evolutionary biology should be abandoned simply because it has not yet e!plained the origins of every single process of life. 4ecause biochemical processes dont leave behind fossils its not as easy to e!plain their origins as it is for bone structures that do fossiliFe. (owever evolutionary biologists are making e!cellent progress in understanding the origins and processes of the biochemistry of life. Jroponents of I' have also created the idea of irreducible comple!ity which is central to I'. It states that many processes of life are too comple! and irreducible to have evolvedB therefore a designer must have created them. This comple!ity comes from many interrelated parts or processes which supposedly are useless without all the other parts or processes. This is &ust another @god of the gapsA and it also falls apart under close e!amination. @"hat good is half an eye)A they ask. The answer is simple. /ny amount of vision is better than none and any change that improves vision probably improves survivability. -tarting with basic lightDsensing cells eyes have evolved thru natural selection one small step at a time. Cichard 'awkins has an e!cellent e!planation of this 0and much more9 in his book Climbin !ount Im"#obable. /n icon of the irreducible comple!ity concept is the bacterial flagellum with its many similarities to an electric motor and about 1< protein components re$uired to produce a working biological function. >nfortunately for the I' movement research has demolished the flagellum's status as an e!ample of irreducible comple!ity. -ome bacteria use what is known as type III secretory system 0TT--9 to allow them to in&ect proteins directly into the cytoplasm of a host cell. TT-- has a strong likeness in structure to the flagellum and uses about :H to 8< of the same proteins. This shows that the flagellum is not irreducibly comple! because a functioning structure 0albeit with a different function9 can be made with :< to :H fewer proteins. / detailed analysis can be found in The Elagellum >nspunK The *ollapse of @Irreducible *omple!ityA. Intelligent 'esign is simply not scienceB it's religion dressed up to look like science to the uninformed. It is mystical pseudoscience. I'd like to address a common statement made by creationists that scientists have supposedly never actually witnessed evolution so evolution eitherK a9 isn't real science or b9 hasn't happened. Eirst this is a gross mischaracteriFation of science. There are many processes that scientists can understand without directly witnessing them such
as much of geology or fusion at the cores of stars. -econd this statement ignores the fact that evolution usually takes thousands or millions of years. It's like looking at a tree and saying that it's not growing because you can't see any growth in a day. Third for many many species we have e!cellent evidence in the fossil record and genetic data of the changes of the species. Eourth scientists have actually witnessed the rapid evolution of new species the apple moth from the hawthorn moth a new species of polychaetes fish and many more.
Jaleontology 0fossils9 'istribution of /nimals and Jlants *omparative /natomy 5mbryology Iestigial +rgans =enetics ,atural -election -e!ual -election Molecular 4iology 4ad 'esign #ab 5!periments
I will only deal here with brief overviews of paleontology embryology vestigial organs genetics natural selection bad design and lab e!periments. I will also look at the related science of abiogenesis the study of the origin of life.
0aleontology
The history of life on 5arth is in its fossils and more than ;;R of all species that ever e!isted are now e!tinct. 0,ote that this is a lousy record for any sort of intelligent designer.9 "e have e!tensive fossils showing how species have come and gone over the last several hundred million years. (ere are &ust a few e!amplesK
Trilobites appeared over H<< million years ago and e!isted for 1<< million years 0with over :H <<< known species9. /bout 1GH million years ago land animals were evolving from fish. 'inosaurs 0with an estimated 8<< <<< species9 lived 8H: to ?H.H million years ago. (orses are descended from the catDsiFed 5ohippus of H< to ?< million years ago. "hales are descended from land animals of H8 million years ago. (umans are descended from a long line of hominids over at least 3.3 million years.
The dating methods for determining the ages of fossils and rocks are well established. They usually depend on the radioactive decay of different isotopes of elements and can be used on ob&ects that are hundreds to billions of years old. Eor an inDdepth e!planation see /ccuracy of Eossils and 'ating Methods. The evidence for evolution of life is overwhelming and conclusive. This evidence is not &ust in the fossils but also in the body parts and genes of almost every living thing. If you have any doubts take a little time to learn the concepts of evolution then spend a few hours in any natural history museum or public library. If your mind is at all open you will see the evidence. Cemember ignorance of how evolution works is no argument against it. The basic Theory of 5volution is completely solid and will continue to be updated as we learn more about the comple! history of life.
Em/ryology
>nlike other primates humans don't have a thick coat of fur. /t around si! months after conception humans and all other primates have a downy coat of hair called lanugo. Eor humans this coat is usually shed about a month before birth altho some premature infants are born with it. 5ven whale fetuses have and shed lanugo which is a relic of their land ancestry. The embryos of all cetaceans 0dolphins porpoises and whales9 also show the evidence of their four legged land ancestry with hind limb structures that are obvious at about 83 days of age. In dolphins these typically have almost completely disappeared by 32 days altho in 8<<? a bottlenose dolphin was found in Japan with rear fins. In whales these structures often develop into a pelvis and useless rudimentary rear legs that are contained within the body.
/ll vertebrates have embryos that have fishDlike features with tails and what are called branchial arches. In fish these arches develop into the &aw and gills. In humans and other mammals they go thru comple! changes to develop into structures in the adult head and upper body. Eish embryos become fish. /mphibian embryos start like fish and add e!tra development to become amphibians. Ceptile embryos start like fish go thru developments like amphibians and add e!tra development to become reptiles. Mammalian embryos go thru all these stages then lose some reptilian development and add e!tra development to become mammals. In mammals the initial fishDlike circulatory system turns into an amphibianDlike system. It then changes to a system similar to embryonic reptiles and finally turns into a true mammalian circulatory system. This @recapitulationA of our evolutionary history is also followed in the embryonic development of other organs such as our kidneys. Three different types of kidneys are formed se$uentially with the first two similar to those of fish and reptiles. +nly the last 0mammalian9 organs are kept. /ll these embryological changes only truly make sense when viewed thru the lens of evolution where each individual 0and eventually species9 inherits the development processes of its immediate ancestor.
1estigial 2rgans
%ou dont even need to go to a natural history museum or library to see evidence for evolutionB our own bodies have many signs of our evolutionary heritage. "hen we get goose bumps our bodies are trying to keep warm by raising hairs that are no longer dense enough to help. The muscles that allow us to wiggle our ears are of no use for us but they did help some distant ancestors. (umans also have many other useless vestigial organs such as nipples and mammary glands on males 0like all mammals9 and the tailbone which is &ust a holdover from when our primate ancestors actually had tails millions of years ago. Many other species also have obvious useless vestigial organsK
Elightless birds such as kiwis and ostriches have vestigial wings. -ome whales still have vestigial legs and pelvic bones as noted above. -ome fish which live in caves are blind but still have vestigial eyes. 'andelions reproduce without fertiliFation and basically clone themselvesB altho they have the proper organs necessary for se!ual reproduction they do not use them.
Intelligent 'esign completely fails to e!plain these vestigial organs on embryos adults and plants which are obviously suboptimal. The Theory of 5volution e!plains them perfectly. If some god designed us and all life heTsheTit certainly didn't do a perfect &ob.
-tephen J. =ould stated it wellB @+dd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolution paths that a sensible =od would never tread but that a natural process constrained by history follows perforce.A
Genetics
5very cell in our bodies contains the evidence of our evolutionary origins. The basic process of life on 5arth is so common that we share about H<R of our genes with carrots and about ;;R of our genes with chimpanFees 0but that's a difference of :H million to 1< million genes and gene switches9. In fact humans are genetically closer to chimps than mice are to rats. (ere are some useful biological factsK
"e get an e!act copy of the mitochondria in each cell from our mother almost every time. 5very male gets an e!act copy of his % chromosome from his father almost every time. 4oth mitochondria and % chromosomes slowly mutate over time at known rates.
"ith this knowledge geneticists can estimate how recently any two of us shared a common female ancestor or any two males shared a common male ancestor. >sing this information and other data the evidence strongly points to the claim that most or all of us are descended from a group of /fricans that started migrating about :<< <<< years ago. "e share about ;;R of our genes with chimps but we have 81 pairs of chromosomes while chimps and other great apes have 83. / close e!amination of the chromosomes shows that one pair of our chromosomes is made of two from the other primates. +ur combined chromosome even shows the evidence of where the two chromosomes &oined with the ends of the old chromosomes in the middle of the &oined chromosome. Eor more see 5vidence of *ommon 'escent between Man and +ther Jrimates. Most animals have the capability to synthesiFe vitamin * but in humans and other primates the gene for this is broken and doesn't function. The differences in the ',/ se$uences for this broken gene 0called a pseudogene9 correlate to the genetic drift that is predicted by evolutionary theory with chimpanFees being the most similar to humans followed by orangutans and maca$ues.
Natural Selection
#et me address a common e!ample that proponents of Intelligent 'esign use. $See ene#al eye dia #am.% @#ook at the wonderful design of the human eye A they say. @-urely this design could not have happened by chance. It must be that @=od did it.A /ctually it did happen by chance countless little chance events of changes in the gene pool over generations all controlled by the harsh realities of natural selection and survival of the fittest. "hile the initial changes in the gene pool 0mutations9 were chance
events survival of the fittest is obviously not random. This is the heart of the basic Theory of 5volutionB individuals can pass their genes and characteristics on to their offspring. If a gene makes an individual more likely to have offspring that survive its offspring 0carrying that gene9 will also be more likely to have offspring that survive. In effect species a#e designed to fit their environment. The designer is the blind process of evolution however not some god or gods. 5volution creates an illusion of human or supernatural design. This illusion is so powerful that it took until :2H; for us to discover it when *harles 'arwin put forth one of the greatest ideas in science evolution by natural selection. This idea was the progenitor and center of the Theory of 5volution. 'arwin was limited by the scientific knowledge of the time and thus didn't know about genes the way that characteristics are inherited. This limitation was soon filled in by =regor Mendel who showed that the inheritance of traits follows particular mathematical laws.
+ad Design
The faults in the design of the human eye especially show its evolutionary origins. $See eye dia #am o& #etina.% "hen we study the retina at the back of the eye we can see that the cell layers are backwards. #ight has to travel thru seven layers of cells before reaching the light sensing cells. Then the signals go back thru these layers to the nerves on the inside surface. In addition the blood vessels are on the inside surface and further block the light. / truly intelligent designer could have done better than the human eye. /ctually evolution did a better &ob with the eyes of birds 0which have no blood vessels in the retina9 and the octopus and s$uid 0which have the light sensing cells on the surface9. In fact vision is so useful for survival that eyes have evolved independently at least twenty separate times with at least a doFen different designs. (umans and other animals have many more e!amples of subDoptimal or bad design. (ere are a fewK
+ne of the worst designs in mammals is the nerve for the laryn! called the recurrent laryngeal nerve. It is much longer than it needs to be going from the brain into the chest around the aorta and back up to the laryn!. In humans it's about three feet too long but in giraffes it's about fifteen feet longer than needed. The human pelvis slopes forward which was useful for our knuckleDwalking ancestors. The only reason that we can walk upright is because we have an incredible sharp bend at the base of our spines 0which is the source for so much low back pain9. +ur abdominal organs are even suspended from the spine which is &ust a vestigial holdover from when the spine was actually above them. The human baby's skull is too big such that many women painfully die in childbirth if they don't get modern medicine.
3a/ E*periments
Many people think that science re$uires lab e!periments which is a gross misunderstanding of science. The Theory of 5volution doesn't need lab e!periments for verificationB it has the entire history of life on 5arth. It is a bonus that successful lab e!periments have been done using random mutation and survival of the fittest to create new bacteria. -cientists at the 4rookhaven ,ational #aboratory developed new strains of bacteria that live in harsh environments while consuming carbonDrich materials such as oil and coal. There are also new strains of bacteria 0using new enFymes9 that can digest byproducts of nylon manufacture.
A +ottom,'p 0rocess
The Theory of 5volution e!plains embryological $uirks vestigial organs and other bad designs. It also e!plains how order and comple!ity 0like eyes and new enFymes9 can grow from simplicity. +ver billions of years evolution has resulted in the vast array of species on our planet with their many comple! organs and traits. "e understand how biological patterns emerge. Climbin !ount Im"#obable by Cichard 'awkins shows how highly intrinsically improbable features of organisms can come about thru very small 0and possible9 evolutionary steps. 'aniel 'ennett e!plains in 'a#(in)s 'an e#ous Idea* Evolution and the !eanin s o& +i&e how evolution is the central organiFing natural process that gives rise to comple!ity. 5volution doesn't re$uire a topD down designerB it is a bottomDup process that results in comple!ity and order naturally emerging from simplicity.
!2nly a %heory"
Jeople often say that evolution is @only a theory.A Its important to remember that the term @theoryA in science is not the same as it is in general usage. A scientific theory is a unifying concept that e*plains a large /ody of data- t is a hypothesis that has 4ithstood the test of time and the challenge of opposing vie4s- The Theory of 5volution is the basic unifying concept of biology. The *5+ of The /merican /ssociation for the /dvancement of -cience /lan #eshner wrote @/lthough scientists may debate details of the mechanisms of evolution there is no argument among scientists as to whether evolution is taking place.A The ,ational /cademy of -ciences the most prestigious scientific organiFation in the >nited -tates has declared evolution @one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have A and notes that evolution is supported by an overwhelming scientific consensus. The Theory of 5volution has as much validity as the theory of gravity atomic theory or the germ theory of disease. It's interesting to note that the idea that the 5arth goes around the sun is also a scientific theory albeit one with e!tensive evidence. 5very day our eyes
are deceived when we see the sun rising and setting as it apparently goes around the 5arth. 5volution is thus both a fact and a theory. It is a fact that species have evolved. The Theory of 5volution e!plains our best understanding of the processes that cause evolution. It's a lot like gravity. =ravity is obviously a fact. The theory of gravity attempts to e!plain how gravity works. /ctually we know less about how gravity works than how evolution works. There is an underlying problem with the design argument and most proponents of Intelligent 'esign probably arent aware of it. 4y assuming that living things have some sort of metaphysical purpose they are intrinsically assuming what they want to prove. Jurpose is an abstract human concept that e!ists only in our minds much like beauty with no physical reality. In the universe things have no intrinsic purposeB they &ust e!ist. 'oes an atom have any purpose) 'oes a pebble) 'oes a star) 'oes an amoeba plant or any living thing have a real e!ternal purpose) "e could say that living things have the purpose of procreating to continue their species. (owever we must realiFe that this is &ust our viewpoint our interpretation. Cocks trees people stars and the universe have no intrinsic purpose. "e can create purpose for ourselves and that is good because it's a useful conceptB but its important to understand that purpose is a human construct. Cemember when proponents of I' begin their arguments by noting the design and purpose of nature they are assuming what they want to prove. 'ont be fooled by this logic sleight of hand. ,o intelligent designer is needed for purpose to e!ist because purpose e!ists only in our minds.
A/iogenesis
5ven more basic than evolution is the field of science called abiogenesis which deals with the origins of life from nonDlife. -imple e!periments have shown that amino acids the molecular units that make up proteins can be made in lab conditions simulating 5arths early atmosphere and they are even found in outer space. The other critical molecular types lipids carbohydrates and nucleotides can also result from natural chemical processes. These molecules are not living but abiogenesis scientists are learning many ways that life could have originated from them. 'r. Jack -Fostak winner of the 8<<; ,obel JriFe in Jhysiology or Medicine has shown how primitive protocells could form with lipids as a cellular wall and a selfDpolymeriFing nucleotide inside. These could grow and divide driven purely by physics chemistry and thermodynamics. 5volution could take it from there. Many abiogenesis researchers think that life or its precursors could have started as C,/ and then evolved to ',/. / very interesting e!periment showed that lifeDlike evolution can occur in a test tube with synthesiFed C,/ enFymes that can replicate
themselves without the help of any proteins or other cellular components. It's not biology but it shows how evolutionary processes can happen in nonDliving molecules. Cemember that 5arth had billions of years and countless environments to create life while scientists have only been trying since the :;H<'s. I think that weve made good progress. /nd even if we're not smart enough to understand the origin of life that doesn't mean that some god did it. Eor more see articles and websites listed in our @/biogenesisA science section.
good and beauty in the world they should also give their god credit for the evil and ugliness such as natural disasters babies with birth defects and all the diseases. The morality of nature shows its evolutionary heritage. "hat loving intelligent designer would have invented the diseases of the world including a parasite that blinds millions of people and a gene that covers babies with e!cruciating blisters) This is part of the Jroblem of 5vil which I will cover later. Eor more see articles and websites listed in our @5volutionA science section.
2rigin of &onsciousness
-ome people claim that consciousness is too mysterious or comple! to be e!plained scientifically therefore a god is necessary. *onsciousness certainly is comple! and we probably can't completely understand it in part because it is so sub&ectiveB but that doesn't mean that some god is its source any more that we need a god to e!plain the weather. *onsciousness is an emergent property of a sufficiently comple! living brain. /nyone who has had a mammal as a pet knows that animals can think and emote. They may not think as well as we do because their brains arent as comple! as ours but they definitely think and even dream. 4iology also shows us that many mammals have brains that are very similar to ours differing only in siFes of the functional sections. 5ven simple animals such as worms show a very limited consciousness by responding to their environment. The more comple! the brain the more comple! the consciousness. "e also know that when a persons brain is damaged the person can lose part of his consciousness. The sad cases where the brain is e!tremely damaged can result in a @persistent vegetative stateA with no consciousness. / god isnt necessary to e!plain consciousnessB functioning comple! brains are.
humans who did love were more likely to have descendants. 5volution has programmed us for love. The feelings of love can certainly be wonderful and they are created in our bodies by hormones. +ne of these is o!ytocin which is produced during se! and in breastfeeding women. It acts as a neurotransmitter in the brain and can create strong feelings of attachment and love.
behavior and morality grow out of the knowledge that making others happy makes us happy. 5ven other primates such as chimpanFees monkeys and apes e!hibit empathy and morality. Eor more about this see @-cientist Einds the 4eginnings of Morality in Jrimate 4ehavior.A +f course the natural world is not loving or moral along with many humans. "e thus have the continual dilemma of how to survive with this conflict using our natural selfD interest. If people claim that their god is the source of morality they are faced with defining morality and whether it is dependent on their god. Jlato said it best @Is what is moral commanded by =od because it is moral or is it moral because it is commanded by =od)A If it's the former then =od is not needed. If it's the latter then morality depends on =od's whim and ethics are unnecessary. #ets look at what happens when people claim to get absolute morality from a god or his @holyA book. I say that such religious absolutists dont have moralityB what they have is a code of obedience which is not the same. This god sets what is supposedly moral and they obey. If this god were to say that murder and theft were moral theists would have to kill and steal to act morally. /ctually this is e!actly what is happening with the suicide bombers in the Middle 5ast. This is also what was behind the *rusades the In$uisitions and ;T::. The fact that we find this so abhorrent shows that morality does not come from a god. =ods fail as a source of morality. Many religious people like to claim that nonDbelievers have relative morality while they have absolute morality. (owever since no *hristians or Jews are stoning those who work on the -abbath and no Muslims are slaying transgressors wherever they catch them they are choosing which @holyA laws to follow and which to ignore. "e all have relative morality. Eor *hristians if their morality is based on fear of punishment from their god then they have an @outA where they can be absolved of their sins 0usually by an appropriate 5arthly authority9. This is a good marketing scheme but it makes for flimsy moral system of punishment and reward. Monotheistic religions typically define most or all of morality as dealing with humans and their @sinsA against their god. Jeople are then moral to each other only to obey their god and escape his punishment. This ignores the concept of morality that deals directly with the conse$uences of our actions on other people or conscious beings. This morality is about the reality of our impact on others not on our relationship with an imaginary god who can be appeased with a few magic words. / large philosophical problem that religious moralists face is where to get the word of their god or gods. They can get it from @divineA revelation or from supposedly @holyA
books. 5ach of these sources faces a problemB how do we know that this is the true word of the god) Ive already discussed revelation so lets look at the idea of a holy book. I am most familiar with the *hristian 4ible so thats what Ill address. The 4ible is touted by many as a source of ultimate knowledge and morality. It is said to be =ods perfect words to humankind. (ave you ever read it) It contradicts itself in many places is often difficult or impossible to interpret and is largely simply boring. -ome of it looks to me like it was written under the influence of hallucinogens. It contains two very different lists of Ten *ommandments 0in three sets9 and three sets of paternal ancestors for Jesus 0with one lineage &ust being the (oly =host9. The betterD known set of Ten *ommandments 0given in 5!odus 8<K8D:G and 'euteronomy HK?D8:9 even says that children can be punished for the sins of their greatDgrandfathersP The lesserDknown set 0in 5!odus 13K:8D8G9 tells us to not cook a young goat in its mothers milk. /re these the words of a perfect moral being) The *hristian 4ible is conflicted about homose!uality. /ltho there are notoriously antiD gay verses : -amuel :2K:D1 clearly refers to two men loving each other. 5ven the Jesus character is hinted at as being gay in John 8<K8. This shows that *hristians have little to stand on when they try to push their religion's view of se!uality on the rest of us. Their logic is based on the primitive concept that we don't want to make their 0allD loving)9 god angry or he's going to do something bad to us. Many *hristians think that the 4ible supports @traditionalA marriage. (owever nowhere does it clearly state @one man and one womanA or @monogamyA or any words to that effect but references to abstinence and polygamy are plentiful. The 4ible also has the purported histories of many rapes slaughters and other mass killings most of them directed or condoned by the god %ahweh. They even note how pregnant women were sliced open so much for %ahweh being against abortion. In one wellDknown story %ahweh drowned almost everyone and everything on the planet merely because he didnt like the activities of some of the people 0that he had created9. In another story 38 children were killed in the name of %ahweh &ust for calling a man bald. In addition the 4ible has more than H< listings of death penalties some for supposed @sinsA that most of us dont even consider to be morally wrong such as working on the -abbath or eating blood. 'o these tales and penalties show the actions of a loving god) The god of the +ld Testament is a capricious petty pathological vindictive schiFophrenic massDmurdering tyrant not a paragon of moral virtue. /nd -atan often comes off as the good guy. /fter all how many people did Satan kill) The god of the ,ew Testament is a little nicer as described by the character Jesus. 4ut Jesus and this god also introduced eternal punishment not a very kind or loving thing to do. This ,ew Testament god also kept the idea of a human blood sacrifice even demanding it of his own son. If you still think that morality should come from the *hristian 4ible I ask what do you think about slavery and child abuse) ,ot once in the entire 4ible is slavery or child abuse 0other than child sacrifice9 condemned not even in the writings about Jesus. In fact both are condoned in many placesB there are over 8< verses on slavery and over 1< verses advocating child abuse. 5ven the Jesus character
had recommendations about whipping and chopping up slaves. It's obvious that any kind person could do a better &ob of defining morals than what is in the 4ible. The *hristian 4ible its god and its savior all fail the morality test. ,esus died &o# ou# sins. This is one of the primary moral points of *hristianity and it is glorified human sacrifice or formally known as atonement or substitutive sacrifice. Many religions have practiced it when they killed sacrificial animals or humans on altars. "hat kind of morality is this where an animal or person has to die because of what others have done 0or will do9) "hen we look at cultures that sacrificed humans we call them barbaric and primitive. It makes no difference if the person being sacrificed agreesB it is still blatantly repugnantly immoral and abominable. The *hristian ceremony of communion is based on this blood sacrifice and is &ust ritualiFed cannibalism and vampirism. ,ote also that the Coman *atholic *hurch's doctrine of transubstantiation holds that during communion the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of *hrist. This doctrine makes #eviticus GK8G problematic because it calls for the e!ecution of those who eat blood. >sing religion as a source for morality completely collapses when we look at religious positions now and in history. There are religious people with different positions on such moral issues as the death penalty abortion birth control and gay and womens rights. (ow can this be if they all get the same divine words from the same god) Cestrictions on birth control have added to the misery in the world by causing more disease and more births on a planet that already has too many people. Cacism misogyny and slavery were once considered perfectly moral by large portions of humankind and were seen as having a religious basis. /lso the killings done in the names of different gods by most religions are legendary. +ur culture has changed along with our laws and these evils are no longer acceptable in modern society. Celigion cannot give us reliable answers to moral issues. Morality is a social and legal construct not a religious one. Celigion and gods fail as sources of morality.
Jeople say that archeological evidence shows that some places and people mentioned in the 4ible really e!istedB therefore the 4ible is true. This is like saying that Gone With the Wind is true because the *ivil "ar actually occurred. #ets first look at four biblical personages Moses /braham .ing (erod the =reat and Jesus and the biblical town of ,aFareth. There is no reliable e!traDbiblical reference to Moses or /braham and they are likely apocryphal. In fact there is no reliable evidence that the JewsTIsraelites were ever in 5gypt. 5ven Israeli archaeologists have acknowledged this 0and Israel has the most to gain from a divine land grant9. .ing (erod the =reat ruled from 1; to about 3 4*5. (is supposed @slaughter of the innocentsA 0Matthew 8K:1D819 is not mentioned by any historian of the time 0or even other gospel authors9 and is thus likely a complete fabrication which fulfilled a common story line for saviors.
stories9) The gospel of John hardly refers to Jesus as a real person with a real life. #ike Jaul the author viewed Jesus as more of a skyDgod. /s for the e!traDbiblical historicity of Jesus there is absolutely no reliable contemporary evidence that he ever even e!isted. (e made no impression on any historian of the first century. If Jesus e!isted and if the spectacular events in the gospels really happened they would have been noted by many writers including Jhilo of /le!andria -eneca the 5lder Jliny the 5lder Justus of Tiberius and over thirty others. ,one of these men referred to Jesus or the fantastical biblical events. The earliest e!traDbiblical supposed references to Jesus or *hrist are in one paragraph and one sentence in the writings 0about ;1 *59 attributed to the Jewish historian Elavius Josephus 0who also wrote about (ercules9 and the Coman historian *ornelius Tacitus 0about ::G *59. (owever there is overwhelming evidence that they were added much later. The reference by Josephus was almost certainly created by @church historianA 5usebius who first referred to it in about 183 *5 for 5mperor *onstantine's *ouncil of ,icea. The reference by Tacitus was probably added in the :3<<'s 0likely in :3?2 by Johannes de -pire of Ienice9 because no mention is made to it in any known te!t prior to then. The Jesus story also shows e!tensive similarities to other myths of the time 0especially 'ionysus Mithra and (orus9. -ome early *hristians attributed this to -atan who went back in time and created the religions that OcopiedO *hristianity. Jesus is worshiped on -unday because he is a sun god like Mithra LeusTJupiter (orus /ttis 'ionysus /donis TammuF (ercules Jerseus 4acchus /pollo (elios and -ol Invictus whose birthdays are also on the old winter solstice of 'ecember 8H when the sun is @reborn.A There were more than a doFen other deities and saviors who were resurrected after violent deaths Mithra +sirisT-erapis InannaTIshtar (orus Jerseus 4acchus /ttis (ermes /donis (erculesT(eracles TammuF /sclepius and Jrometheus. *hristianity &ust told the story the best and managed to get control of the government under *onstantine. -o let's look at the evidence we have. Erom the earliest *hristian writers such as Jaul we have little to indicate that Jesus was a real person. /nd we have strong evidence that he was &ust a spiritual skyDgod to them. Erom the later 0and unknown9 writers of the gospels we have a story that grew over time with more fantastical events added as the story was told and reDtold &ust like a myth. Erom the historians of the first century we have nothing. ,othing. Eor a deeper look into these ideas see O'id Jesus Ceally 5!ist)O. It's also interesting that the Jrophet Muhammad may not have actually e!isted. Muhammad -ven .alish an Islamic theologian came to that conclusion after he studied the historical evidence for the prophet's life.
+ne large difference between science and religion is thisK In science if the facts dont fit the theory the theory is modified or tossed out. In religion if the facts dont fit the theory the facts are often tossed out. /ll too often people re&ect evidence and the findings of science because they conflict with their religious assumptions. "ith their minds thus unhinged from the real world they can have problems distinguishing fantasy from reality. "hat does it mean when we believe something based on an authority) It means that we are taking something or someone elses words as truth without a real knowledge ourselves. "e all do this for many sub&ects. +ur first authorities are the people who raise us. This is because we are born with no innate knowledge of the world and have to learn it from scratch. To help us learn $uickly our brains are wired in childhood to largely believe without $uestion what we are taught. "e $uickly absorb whatever our parents teach us including their religion. Eor most people their parents' religion thus becomes the @one true religionA as most of us know from e!perience and as shown by many studies. "e soon start learning from other sources such as friends teachers books and other written material. /s we learn and e!perience our world we develop a map in our minds of what the world is like. This map becomes a truth filter. "hen we look at a new idea we typically compare it to the mental map that we have. If the idea fits well in the map we can add it. If the idea doesnt fit we have a problem. "e must either discard the idea or make a change to the map. *hange is difficult and often painful so many people tend to discard ideas that dont fit their mental maps. "hen we use someone or something as an authority we often bypass the comparison process and plug the new ideas directly into our maps. This can save us a lot of research time and mental work. (owever it also opens us to believing in things and ideas that arent true. -ince we cant be e!perts on everything we thus have a problem what and whom can we implicitly believe) Eor me since I want my mental map to be as accurate as possible I have chosen the methods of science and reason as my ultimate authority. -cience and reason have been shown to be the best predictors of how the world functions. -cience and reason arent perfect but they are selfDcorrecting using the scientific method. +ther sources of authority are too prone to misinformation. /ltho we should not use them as authorities it's interesting that ;1R of the members of the ,ational /cademy of -ciences do not believe in =od.
has already occurred or that actions were done merely to fulfill prophesy or that events or prophesies were fabricated. There are also many prophesies that havent come true. /s for religious miracles the evidence is so slim that they should be relegated to hearsay. +ne Nmiracle that many people use is their own survival from a dangerous episode or recovery from a disease or in&ury. They rarely seem to note that many others have not been so lucky. It's as if their god loves only them 0and perhaps their family9 and doesn't care about the others. +f course we never hear from people who almost survived a car wreck airplane crash or diseaseB we only hear from those who survive. I call this the @survivor's fallacy.A 5ven if truly ine!plicable Nprophesies or Nmiracles have occurred that does not mean that theres a god. It could &ust mean that a person has peculiar skills or technological help that we dont understand. "e all can imagine how easy it would be to go to a primitive tribe of humans and impress them with NgodDlike skills that are the result of our technology medicine or knowledge. It is reasonable to consider that we could be fooled by technology that is far in advance of our own. /s famous science fiction author -ir /rthur *. *larke wrote @/ny sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.A #ets consider one wellDknown Nmiracle the resurrection of Jesus *hrist. Eirst as I noted there is no verifiable evidence that Jesus ever even lived. -econd even if he did e!ist there is obviously no evidence that he actually died on the cross. If Jesus didn't die his supposed Nresurrection was much more possible in a purely natural sense. -ome people think that the martyrdom of his followers proves the resurrection of Jesus. /t best it simply proves their bullDheaded beliefs not actual fact. /t worst they were fictional characters or deluded people. Cecent e!amples of deluded followers are the Jonestown and (eaven's =ate mass suicides. "e don't think that they proved anything. /s I've noted the story of Jesus lineage is also confusing. If Joseph didnt father Jesus then why does the 4ible show Josephs ancestors with two different lists) The historical reason for the conflicting stories of Jesus' lineage lies in the fact that the idea of the virgin birth 0with the @(oly =hostA as the father9 was added later. The original story had Jesus descended from 'avid 0thru Joseph9 to fulfill prophesy. /nother prophesy that was supposedly fulfilled by the character Jesus was the idea that he came from ,aFareth. This resulted from an unknown gospel writer's confusion between ,aFirite ,aFarene and ,aFareth. I've found three e!cellent $uotes that sum up the problem of prophesy and miracles wellK @,o testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle unless that testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavours to
establish.A 'avid (ume -& !i#a.les 0:G329 @Is it more probable that nature should go out of her course or that a man should tell a lie) "e have never seen in our time nature go out of her courseB but we have good reason to believe that millions of lies have been told in the same timeB it is therefore at least millions to one that the reporter of a miracle tells a lie.A Thomas Jaine The A e o& /eason 0:G;39 @It is a fact of history and of current events that human beings e!aggerate misinterpret or wrongly remember events. They have also fabricated pious fraud. Most believers in a religion understand this when e!amining the claims of other religions.A 'an 4arker in O'id Jesus Ceally Cise Erom The 'ead)O "ith these insights in mind which is more likely that true prophesies and miracles have actually occurred or that they are &ust tall tales)
is divided into smaller groups. /nd many of those are divided into even smaller groups. The *hristian faith for instance is divided into over 11 <<< denominations. Celigious faith is the antithesis of rational thought. This is why so many religious leaders actively preach against rational thought and even advanced education. They realiFe that rational thought and education can destroy religious faith and result in fewer followers and less money for them. They know that children are best indoctrinated before the brain is developed enough to separate fantasy from reality. Many good theists think that they can have both religious faith and rational thought by being moderates and not fundamentalists. /ltho this certainly makes for a better pluralistic society moderates enable the fundamentalists by preventing rational e!amination of religion which the moderates and the fundamentalists would lose. /lso the fundamentalists often view themselves as the true followers of the faith. They see the moderates as religious failures because they don't really follow the edicts of the religion but mi! in secularTworldly values. /nd even Jesus didn't like moderates. These good theists often think that they can integrate their allDloving god with the reality of evolution. /ltho this is not antagonistic to science because no sufficiently hidden god can be disproved by science the idea fails theologically. 5volution is often a nasty brutal process. /n allDloving allDpowerful god could certainly do better.
comple! patterns coming out of simple rules such as snowflakes and waves forming. There is nothing in our everyday e!perience that indicates that some higher power is necessary for these patterns and there is nothing that proves that a god is necessary for the patterns we call logic. /dditionally the Jresuppositionalist /rgument gives little indication as to the $ualities of the god it presupposes much like the Eirst *ause and +ntological arguments. The Jresuppositionalist /rgument is &ust another way of answering a supposedly difficult $uestion with the simple response @=od did it.A If anything is not logical it is most religions. I am most familiar with *hristianity so lets look at its basic claimsK
/ supernatural god e!ists that created everything and intervenes in the natural world. This god had a son whose mother was a virgin who had been impregnated by the god in the form of a ghost. This son did many miracles including making a dead person alive again. This son was killed and came back to life one and a half 0not three9 days later.
There is not any empirical verifiable evidence for any of this. There is also much e!perience from everyday life that virgins cant get pregnant from ghosts and that people who have been dead for a while cant come back to life. Thus belief in the above claims is illogical.
0ascal6s Wager
There is an argument for belief in =od that is called Jascals "ager named for 4laise Jascal who conceived it. The argument goes like thisK 5ither there is a god or there isnt. If you believe in =od and =od e!ists then you win big time and go to (eaven. If you dont believe in =od and =od e!ists you lose big time and go to (ell. If there is no god then you havent lost much by believing. -o the obvious choice is to believe in =od because its simply the best bet. Jascals "ager has several faults. The biggest problem is that its not a proof of any gods e!istenceB its &ust an argument for believing a method of e!torting the gullible thru fear. #ike many other such arguments we have discussed it also fails to denote e!actly which god it refers to. Jascals "ager could be applied to any god that offers rewards and punishments. Taken to the e!treme following the wager would necessitate betting on the god with the worst hell so it could be avoided. It's impossible to know which god to worship and which 0perhaps &ealous9 gods to spurn. I doubt if many *hristians would convert to Islam if the wager were presented by a Muslim who told them that Muslim (ell is worse than *hristian (ell and Muslim (eaven is better than *hristian (eaven.
Jascals "ager assumes that the chosen god's mind is knowable and that he doesn't mind people believing in him for e!plicitly selfish reasons. Jerhaps he actually prefers independent thinkers such as atheists not obse$uious followers. -ince the *hristian god %ahweh is on record as having lied there's no way to know his intentions. It would be $uite possible for a true believer to discover on Judgment 'ay that the destination was not (eaven. %ahweh in his infinitely mysterious ways had other plansB and there would be no appeal or debate with an omnipotent being. /nother problem with Jascals "ager is that it implicitly assumes that the odds of the two possibilities are similar. -ince the odds of the *hristian Jewish or Muslim god e!isting are Fero the wager creates a false dilemma. The wager even goes against the doctrine that many religions have where gambling is sinful. ,ote also that the e!istence of the wager and the fact that so many people think that it's relevant illuminate the lack of actual evidence for =od. Jascals "ager also depends on the idea that you dont lose much by believing. This has been false for many who have trusted in their god for help or guidance instead of seeking realityDbased solutions. Jeople have fought killed and died for their belief in their god. Ear too many have died because they 0or their parents9 chose prayer instead of medicine. -words bullets poison and poisonous snakes have killed many who thought that they were protected by their god. 5ven without these more dramatic effects believers often devote significant time energy and money to worshipping their god. 4eliefs in a god 0and the often concomitant ideas of divine punishment and reward9 too often make people more willing to accept ine$ualities in this life. #owDpaid factory workers and slaves were taught that their rewards were in the afterlife so they should be meek and obedient in this life to ensure their 0imaginary9 rewards. 5ven the factory and slave owners could think that they were part of their god's divine plan and thus deserved their earthly rewards. =odDbelief has real e!penses that can be large or destructive. The last problem with Jascals "ager is that it completely ignores and even denigrates intellectual integrity and honestyB the wager assumes that people can believe something &ust because they want to. /s an e!ample lets talk about belief in -anta *laus. 'ont we have more respect for a child who figures out that -anta doesnt e!ist and says so rather than continuing to lie so he can get more presents) Its a sign of growing integrity and maturity for children to stop believing in -anta. -imilarly adults can give up belief in a god when they realiFe that theres no real evidence for their god. *hristians can $uit being @sheepA or @children of godA and become intellectually honest. The loss of intellectual integrity and honesty engendered by Jascals "ager gives some insight into how apparently rational people can behave so irrationally. 4y accepting the wager they have 0perhaps implicitly9 given up these important traits.
Celigion was e!plicitly behind the *rusades the In$uisitions and the mass killings of @witchesA and heretics. Many of these heretics were only guilty of e!pressing ideas that the churches didn't like but are commonly accepted now in science and social reform. "ith the threat of heresy the churches effectively set back humankind's scientific and social advancement by hundreds of years. Celigion is also at the root of most of today's international problems. Just imagine how much more peaceful the world would be without beliefs in gods causing so much strife.
2:R of >.-. teenagers think that =od controlled or influenced the origin of humans. 0=allup9 ?HR of /mericans think that we should teach both creationism and evolution in schools. 0*4-9 HHR believe that @=od created humans in present form.A 0*4-9 3HR believe that the world is less than :< <<< years old. 0=allup9 1GR think that we should teach &ust creationism in schools including ?<R of evangelical *hristians. 0*4-9 1?R believe in telepathy. 1HR say that evolution is well supported by the evidence. 0=allup9 1HR say that evolution is not well supported by the evidence. 0=allup9 8HR believe in astrology. 8HR think the sun goes around the 5arth. :1R think that Joan of /rc was ,oahs wife.
:1R accept the standard scientific account of evolution without a gods involvement. 0*4-9
4elief in an omnipotent deity allows people to use sloppy logic and not have to think very hard. If they are faced with a difficult $uestion about why an event occurred all they have to say is @=od did it.A Then the reason behind the event is a mystery. This is the old @god of the gapsA answer and it's an intellectual copDout. It answers nothingB it predicts nothingB and it teaches nothing. To counter this we must ensure that scientific naturalism and critical thinking skills are taught in our schools. /s students understand better how the world works their personal gods of the gaps will diminish. If we want to have a strong democracy our students and future voters must understand the basic facts of the world around us in order to make informed decisions. If we want to continue leading the world in science medicine and engineering we must make sure that our students learn real science not religious pseudoscientific nonsense.
Jrayer. +n March 8G 8<<1 (ouse Cesolution :H1 passed by an overwhelming vote. It urged the Jresident to issue a proclamation @designating a day for humility prayer and fasting for all people of the >nited -tates.A "e are @to seek guidance from =od to achieve a greater understanding of our own failings A and @to gain resolve in meeting the challenges that confront our nation.A The -enate unanimously passed a similar bill. These government actions violate the spirit if not the letter of the Eirst /mendment. I say that the >.-. is becoming a de facto theo.#a.y. 'o you agree) Celigion has entered policies of the >.-. federal government. EaithDbased groups are receiving billions of federal dollars with little or no oversight. Eederally sponsored se! education courses often follow *hristian ideas and don't teach facts that would help our youth deal with their se!uality. The E'/ has based rulings concerning contraception on religious grounds despite contradicting findings from their science boards and even the will of a vast ma&ority of the >.-. population. Eormer Jresident =eorge ". 4ush used his first veto to block funding of stem cell research because of his religious views. Celigion has even entered into laws of most of the >.-. states. ,ine states discriminate against atheists in their constitutions with seven states prohibiting atheists from holding office. +ne state even prohibits atheists from testifying in court. -i! states still have antiD blasphemy laws. Eortunately these laws aren't generally followed. Many states prohibit sameDse! marriage based on religious ideas. ThirtyDnine states allow religious e!emptions from child abuse or neglect charges while thirtyDone states allow a religious defense to a criminal charge and nineteen states allow a religious defense for felony crimes against children. Jarents can beat their children or allow them to die without needed medical help and then basically claim @=od said I could.A "here is the vaunted proDlife Feal of many *hristians) +r does it only apply to what they call @preDbornA children) / basic source of incompatibility between religion and democracy lies in how each deals with points of view that disagree. Celigion is usually based on divisive absolutes like right and wrong good and evil =od and -atan us and them. 'emocracy needs to be based on compromise. This is why democracy functions best when religion and its divisiveness are kept out of government. True freedom must give us the ability to do and say what many others may disagree with or freedom means little. Its always easy to allow people to do what you agree withB the real test of freedom comes when people say or do what you disagree with. This is another reason why religion must be kept out of a democratic government. Eew religions grant other than mild disagreement often branding critical or disliked ideas and people as heretical. 'emocracy however thrives best when people are willing to openly disagree. Many religious and political leaders say that our freedoms and liberties come from =od. I say that freedoms in a society do not e!ist without the ability to enforce them. In the >.-. this power originates in our *onstitution and is implemented by our officials enforcing it. In many ways we can say that our government created our freedoms. If
=od is the source of freedom why was there so little of it before our nation was formed) /nd why does it take a government to enforce that freedom) 4efore the >.-. was founded most governments and religions worked together to stay in power limiting whatever rights and freedoms the common people might try to obtain. The concept of a religion actually promoting the rights of the individual is a relatively recent development. Its important to remember that the >.-. was founded as the first country that derived its power from a purely secular nonreligious basis. /ll nations before then had kings and $ueens who often used their supposed @=odDgiven divine rightA to rule. Instead of this topDdown power structure our founders wisely created a government that derived its powers from the consent of the governed. This is why our *onstitution begins with @"e the Jeople...A The >nited -tates was also founded in direct contradiction to the *hristian concept of submission to the current government as put forth in Comans :1K:DG. These verses are a biblical source of the divine right of rulers and state that =od established the authorities so rebelling against them is rebelling against =od. Eortunately our founding fathers were more interested in human rights than the rights of the *hristian god and his minions. +ur nations founders also realiFed the inherent divisiveness of religion and the many bloody wars that had been fought over religion and kept it specifically out of our *onstitution and government. =od is not even mentioned in our *onstitution. Celigion is only mentioned twice both times to keep religion and government separate. The Treaty of Tripoli written during the administration of Jresident =eorge "ashington signed by Jresident John /dams and unanimously approved by the -enate stated @The =overnment of the >nited -tates is not in any sense founded on the *hristian religion.A (ow could we as a nation have forgotten such an important fact) Many *hristians are still trying to make the >nited -tates a *hristian nation. They will point out that many of our founding fathers were religious and that @=odA and @*reatorA are mentioned in the 'eclaration of Independence. "hat they dont mention is the fact that the religion of some of the founding fathers was deism 0not *hristianity9 the fact that the 'eclaration of Independence refers to @,atures =odA 0a deistic god not the *hristian god9 and the fact that the 'eclaration of Independence is not a basis of our governmentB the *onstitution is. "hat these *hristians also won't mention is that altho the founders were largely religious they saw the wisdom in separating government and religion. Its often said that the phrase @separation of church and stateA does not appear in the *onstitution. The phrase originated with Thomas Jefferson the author of the 'eclaration of Independence when he wrote @I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole /merican people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free e!ercise thereof
thus building a wall of separation between church and state.A This was in a letter to a 4aptist church to reassure them that the >.-. would keep religion and government separate. The 4aptists were painfully aware of that danger because of their own recent e!periences of not being the favored religion in some states and other countries. -upreme *ourt Justice (arry 4lackmun said it best. @/ government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created e$ual when it asserts that =od prefers some.A *hristians sometimes claim that our government is based on the 4ible. They fail to note that nowhere in the 4ible is there any reference to democracy trial by &ury (abeas *orpus civil rights womans rights or freedom of religion 0which is specifically forbidden9. "hat we find in the 4ible are slavery genocide rape incest murder misogyny and bigotry. Many people claim that the atheism of ,aFi and *ommunist countries shows the supposed evils of atheism. Eor ,aFism we must note that =ermany was largely *hristian their army and badges had *hristian themes and even /dolf (itler said he was *atholic and followed *hrist. /lso in the :;1<'s and 3<'s =ermany was paying the Iatican about U:<< million per year having mutually signed a concordat in :;11. It's easy to conclude that this money helped persuade the pope from doing anything substantial about the (olocaust or other crimes perpetrated by the ,aFis. It's also astounding that no =erman leader was e!communicated from the *atholic *hurch because of the (olocaust or ""II 0altho propaganda minister =oebbels was e!communicated for marrying a divorced Jrotestant woman9. The best response about *ommunism comes from *hristian historicity researcher 'avid EitFgerald. @/theism is nothing more than a conclusion. There are plenty of people in this world who are atheists but this doesn't mean we share values. *ommunism is a perfect e!ample. *ommunism is for all practical purposes a political religionK It is totalitarian it venerates its sainted founders it has sacred dogma that cannot be challengedB it persecutes its heretics it does not brook disobedience it feels no compunction against twisting science for its own means. 5ven its touted 'atheism' is simply a defensive reaction against its rival religions. It has nothing in common with the free thought of Jaine or Jefferson or the humanism of 'awkins or 5instein.A It's often argued that leaders who used *hristianity or Islam to further evil ends didn't really believe in =od or Jesus or /llah or the Jrophet Muhammad and weren't @true *hristiansA or @true Muslims.A This is known as the @no true -cotsmanA logical fallacy. ,ote that it really doesn't matter what these leaders truly believedB what matters is what their followers thought they believed. The basic precept of *hristianity that Jesus sacrificed himself for a greater good can be a powerful model for children and soldiers to emulate. /nd there are biblical verses that support a warDlike Jesus. Islam has war and killing more firmly embedded in its @holyA book with the Jrophet Muhammad portrayed as a warring earthly leader. Islam adds to the image of selfDsacrifice with promises of greater heavenly rewards to those who die in the name of their faith. The Quran is also full of threats against unbelievers &ustifying war against them.
"hen religion *ommunism ,aFism racial purity or other dogmatic ideas are combined with government &ust about anything can be &ustified @for a higher cause.A This is why democracy must be kept free of religion and other dogma. Many people think that it is beneficial for most people in a society to believe in a creator that the more faithful a society is the more likely it is to be safe and peaceful. (owever a 8<<H study by =regory -. Jaul shows that a high level of religious belief correlates with more crimes and other social problems. Erom the study's abstractK @#argeDscale surveys show dramatic declines in religiosity in favor of seculariFation in the developed democracies... 'ata correlations show that in almost all regards the highly secular democracies consistently en&oy low rates of societal dysfunction while proDreligious and antiDevolution /merica performs poorly.A (ere's a review of the study. /theism works well for free societies. Eree nations with high levels of atheism such as -weden 'enmark the ,etherlands /ustralia -witFerland and Japan are among the healthiest wealthiest most educated and most free societies on 5arth. -weden with a population that is least likely to go to church has the lowest crime rate in the industrialiFed world. 'enmark estimated to be between 31R and 2<R atheists and agnostics is listed as the happiest nation in the results of a 8<<2 poll by The "orld Ialues -urveys. It's also interesting that 'enmark legaliFed gay marriages in :;2;.
Many religions teach that a fertiliFed human egg should be accorded all the protections of a fully developed human being. This position that a cell that can barely be seen without a microscope is e$uivalent to a human could only be religiously based. Many *hristians believe that abortion is wrong supposedly based on their 4ible's commandment against killing. (owever the 4ible defines being alive as breathingB since fetuses don't breathe they are not defined as alive and thus could not be killed. This @holyA book notes that fetuses and young babies have at most a monetary value but no moral value and even has stories of pregnant women being ripped open with %ahweh's blessings. It's important to note that about half of all fertiliFed human eggs don't result in a birth. Thus nature 0or an allDpowerful god if you will9 is the greatest 'abortionist' of all. If @life begins at conceptionA then most women who are se!ually active fertile and not using birth control could be defined as killers. -ome religions make this even more problematic by calling @artificialA birth control a sin making women have almost impossible choices between their innate se!uality and the possibility of an unwanted pregnancy. Eorcing women especially if they've been raped to have children that they don't want means that the women are little more than incubators. "e can't legally force somebody to donate blood to save somebody elseB it thus makes no sense to legally force a woman to continue a pregnancy that she doesn't want. The problem of a pregnancy resulting from rape also points out a philosophical weakness in the position of many who are against abortion. If they would allow abortion in the case of rape then they are ignoring the basic precept of the antiDabortion position that the fetus is more important than the mother. There's also the religious problem of souls in identical twins 0which result from a single fertiliFed egg splitting9. 'oes each twin get half a soul or are there now two souls) /nd what about when the two eggs recombine 0which occasionally happens9) / simple re&oinder to the @life begins at conceptionA religious mantra is to say that life doesn't begin at conceptionB it began billions of years ago and we &ust hand it down. This all has an effect of trying to control women. -am (arris has an insightful article on this @=od's (ostages.A +ne of the real evils that I see in both Islam and *hristianity is that they take preD hormonal kids and teach them that se! and even thinking about se! are wrong 0much like murder is wrong9. Then the hormones hit and the kids will think that they are sinful and evil. >nfortunately for them their religion has the solution prostration before their god and further dedication to the religion. It's an effective and sick process. Most religions base their beliefs on a @holyA book or interpretations of the holy book by their religious leaders. 4ecause the holy book is fi!ed it cannot change to account for advances in our understanding of the world or changes in our morality 0such as the morality of slavery9. Celigions thus have an intrinsic goal of resisting change or even
returning to a supposedly better past. -cience however has as its preDeminent goal the improved knowledge of the world and universe. This conflict has been played out almost countless times. =alileo's problems with the *atholic *hurch are classic e!amples. More recently all the resistance to the Theory of 5volution is religiously based. "e have also seen governments reduce funding for scientific research into areas that some religionists disagree with such as global warming. (ow far could humankind have advanced by now if not for the hindrance of religion)
"here did this god idea come from) (umans are patternDseeking animals. "e see patterns everywhere such as similarities between different types of plants animals and people. "e also often imagine invisible agents as causing movement and noises around us. To a great degree this capability has served us well by helping us understand and adapt to our environment. It also causes us to imagine patterns where they dont really e!ist ghosts monsters in a child's room the man in the moon clouds Corschach tests and @intelligentA design in the universe. This is where the god idea comes from. Michael -hermer said it best. @The concept of =od is generated by a brain designed by evolution to find design in nature 0a very recursive idea9.A 4ecause we are sentient social beings our brains are wired to interact with other such brains. This capability is easily subverted and we often anthropomorphiFe animals and even ob&ects giving them @humanA $ualities. The god concept can be seen as simply the result of people anthropomorphiFing the universe. /lso because each god is &ust a pro&ection of people's minds he usually agrees with them. /s social beings we desire the interaction friendship connection and love of other beings. "hat could be better for this than an 0imaginary9 friend in the sky who will always love us and care about us and will even sometimes do our bidding) The god idea also gives people the ability to be certain about many things while ignoring scientific facts. In effect they would rather be certain than right. Many people claim that they can e!perience their god thru meditation or prayer. It's important to understand what goes on inside the brain during such activities. 4rain scans have shown that there's a section dedicated to delineating self from nonDself. 'uring meditation or prayer this section can have reduced activity which can be e!perienced as a connection or oneness with the universe or with =od.
like it's possible to prove that s$uare circles cant e!ist. #et's first discuss the *hristian god %ahweh which as I've noted is typically defined as having free will and being omniscient 0allDknowing9 omnipotent 0allDpowerful9 omnibenevolent 0allDgood9 omnipresent 0present everywhere9 eternal and unchanging. %ahweh is also the creator of the universe. Many *hristian philosophers describe %ahweh as a transcendent being that is outside of space and time. This directly contradicts his being omnipresent 0everywhere in space and time9. *hristian philosophers also often add other attributes to %ahweh 0a.k.a. =od9 such as unknowable ineffable incomprehensible and of course supernatural because they dont want to limit a supposedly infinite being. (ow can we conceive or even logically discuss these characteristics) /ny inDdepth analysis ends in confusion contradictions and irrational nonsense. Eirst its important to note that humans concocted all of these $ualities of %ahweh and they have no e!amples in the real world much like the capabilities of -uperman. To get a better understanding of what *hristians really mean we can substitute @magicalA whenever we see @supernaturalBA they are semantically indistinguishable. %ahwehs typical $ualities sound pretty good. >nfortunately these attributes are mutually e!clusive and cant all e!ist in one being no matter how supernatural it is. %ahweh cant have free will and be omniscient and omnipotent. If %ahweh knows the future %ahweh would be unable to change it and thus could not be omnipotent. /s a simple e!ample lets say that %ahweh declares what tomorrows winning lottery numbers will be and writes them down. (owever now %ahweh cant change those numbers. %ahweh cant both know the future and change it. In fact an omniscient god cant actually de.ide to do anythingP The idea of %ahweh's omniscience also brings into serious $uestion the concepts of human free will and morality. If %ahweh knows what we are going to do then we have no free will and are &ust characters in a play created by %ahweh. "ithout free will morality for humans makes no sense. "ithout free will and morality any sort of divine punishment and reward system loses any &ustification. (eaven and (ell would be places where %ahweh could watch the souls he created predestined for eternal happiness or agony. In the earlier discussion of the Eirst *ause /rgument I showed another reason that %ahweh can't e!ist. / *reator =od like %ahweh that is eternal perfect and unchanging is impossible. %ahweh is thus selfDcontradictory incoherent internally and e!ternally and impossible and cant e!ist.
The Muslim god /llah also suffers from conflicting characteristics. The Quran describes /llah as the *ompassionate the Merciful the #oving and the Just. In order for /llah to be &ust he has to punish those who transgress his laws. To be &ust means to punish people e!actly as they deserve. To be merciful means to punish people less than they deserve. In order for /llah to be compassionate merciful and loving he can't punish without these terms losing their meaning. Thus /llah can't e!ist with these four $ualities. -ome people say that their god really does love us but occasionally punishes us to teach us something. 4ecause this @punishmentA often involves people dying 0from diseases or in natural disasters9 this supposed @godlyA love has little correlation to human love and is obviously concocted.
want everybody to be saved even atheists. If this allDknowing god e!isted it would know that atheists &ust want real proof of its e!istence. If this god were allDpowerful it would be able to give unambiguous proof of its e!istence. It hasnt. Therefore this god doesnt e!ist. /s I have shown the concept of =od is also logically contradictoryB =od not only does not e!ist but cannot e!ist. In short =od is impossible.
intellectually laFy 0or displays their unwillingness to accept difficult conclusions9. I think that this agnosticism is &ust atheism for cowards. -ome have defined it as @I don't believe in =od but in case I'm wrong I'm really really sorry.A It's interesting that *hristian philosophers as I've noted give attributes to %ahweh such as unknowable ineffable and incomprehensible which are &ust terms for agnosticism. The typical personal god such as /llah or %ahweh would show up in its interactions with the real physical world. /s I've noted there is no empirical evidence of this. Thus in this case absence of evidence is evidence of absence. I've also shown that /llah and %ahweh can't e!ist because their definitions are incoherent. This leaves only marginal gods that have little or no interaction with humans and the world. 'o we think that the ancient =reek gods still e!ist) (ow about the Coman ,orse or Mayan gods) (ow about -anta *laus or the 5aster 4unny) +f course not. There is no verifiable evidence for any supernatural guy in a red suit magic rabbit or gods. Just like its hypothetically possible for an undetectable teapot to be orbiting the sun 0as noted by 4ertrand Cussell9 some gods are also hypothetically possible but ridiculously improbable. -o lets be honest with ourselves and look at the world with open eyes as it actually is. 5ssentially all the hypothetical arguments become rather pointless. /theism is the simple conclusion that there are no gods based on the reliable evidence. >ntil some god makes its presence indisputably un$uestionably known I will go with the conclusion that no god e!ists. This is why I'm an atheist. Technically I'm an agnostic atheist and I'm agnostic about gods to the same degree that I'm agnostic about invisible fairies in my garden. *hristians and Jews don't believe in /llah or 4rahma. (indus don't believe in %ahweh or /llah. Muslims don't believe in 4rahma or %ahweh. /theists agree with all of them. The truth is that we are each of us all alone in our minds. Many people have imaginary friends called gods to make them feel less alone and often more loved. +ur desire for love is a powerful trait and it's one of the reasons for the popularity of *hristianity with its sayings @=od loves youA and @Jesus loves you.A -ome people learn to give up their imaginary friends. Its sometimes not easy not believing and it is intellectually honest. /theists can derive strength from that. There's no reliable evidence for any gods saviors demons heavens or hells. They are all &ust creations of people attempting to flee the idea of their own mortality and promulgated by honest people who are similarly deluded or by tricksters who fleece the sheep. Jeople have been struggling with mortality for thousands of years. (ere are four $uotes that I likeK
@"hy should I fear death) If I am death is not. If death is I am not. "hy should I fear that which can only e!ist when I do not)A D 5picurus @Eor me it is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion however satisfying and reassuring.A D *arl -agan @"e are all going to die and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. ... The only reason we die is that we were born. "ould you rather have never been born at all)A D Cichard 'awkins @I was dead for millions of years before I was born and it never inconvenienced me a bit.A D Mark Twain
/theism helps us to see reality as it actually is without the mental filters of superstition preventing us from directly e!periencing it. /theism opens us to e!perience our selves without the debasing idea that we are innately evil or sinful.
/theism allows us to e!perience true interpersonal love without any imaginary supernatural intervention. /theism gives us the freedom to think for ourselves to construct our own meanings. "e each can choose what we think has value. /theism shows us that we can gain meaning by seeking to make our world a better place for ourselves and our posterity. /theism teaches us to take responsibility for our behaviors in the here and now not for a reward in an imaginary afterlife. /theism lets us see that we have to make choices about our future. ,o big daddy god is going to protect us from bad decisions. /theism teaches us to treasure this moment this life and this world because we realiFe that its all we have.
(ere are three more $uotes that show the advantages of atheist life and thoughtK @"hen I became convinced that the >niverse is natural that all the ghosts and gods are myths there entered into my brain into my soul into every drop of my blood the sense the feeling of the &oy of freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell the dungeon was flooded with light and all the bolts and bars and manacles became dust.A Cobert Ingersoll :2;? @"e e!perience happiness and suffering ourselvesB we encounter others in the world and recogniFe that they e!perience happiness and suffering as wellB we soon discover that 'love' is largely a matter of wishing that others e!perience happiness rather than sufferingB and most of us come to feel that love is more conducive to happiness both our own and that of others than hate. There is a circle here that links us to one anotherK we each want to be happyB the social feeling of love is one of our greatest sources of happinessB and love entails that we be concerned for the happiness of others. "e discover that we can be selfish together.A -am (arris The End o& 0aith @There is no evidence for a god no coherent definition of a god no good argument for a god good positive arguments against a god no agreement among believers about the nature or moral principles of a god and no need for a god. "e can live happy moral productive lives without such belief and we can do it better.A 'an 4arker of Ereedom Erom Celigion Eoundation Many theists complain that atheism provides no values no code of ethics no standard by which to measure any human conduct. This is true but it's like saying that $uantum mechanics provides no such values. #ike $uantum mechanics atheism is simply a conclusion about how the universe is based on the reliable evidence. This is why most atheists are also -ecular (umanists or &ust (umanists. The philosophy of -ecular (umanism takes the atheist position and adds another layer. It declares that humans
are most important not any imaginary gods. "e have the power thru love reason science courage and vision to solve our problems. "e shape our destiny. "e are each capable of personal development and satisfaction. -ecular (umanism holds as its highest goal the happiness fulfillment and freedom of all humankind. There are many local and nationwide nontheist groups in the >.-. and thruDout the world. I've collected a list of some of them on our communities page. This has been a long and involved article so I would like to conclude with letting you know the bad news ... and the good news. The bad news is that there is no god to watch over and care for us. The good news is that there is no (ell and we can all love and care for each other if we so choose.