4 random arguements for atheism.
July 20, 2009 at 6:49 pm
(This post was last modified: July 20, 2009 at 6:50 pm by Dotard.)
Failure of Revelation
Revelation--receiving direct communication from gods--has failed on a colossal scale over human history. First of all, it is the basis for a myriad of competing scriptures, all of which contain inherently contradictory material. Hence, it is clear that most revelation (if not all revelation) from God or gods must be false.
Worse yet, the distribution of religious revelation has been geographically skewed. All religions originated at one geographical point and spread from there. If any revelation had been from a true god or gods, one might reasonably expect parallel versions of the religion to arise in different locations independently of each other, since gods are not as bound by geography as humans are. But that NEVER happens. The calico patterns of religious revelation suggest that, in fact, religious revelation always arises from the imagination of individuals, and spreads from a geographical center. The main reason that people come to believe in gods is not revelation, but tradition--the accident of being born into a region that accepts that revelation and nothing else.
God as a Bad Explanation
The first argument addressed the failure of revelation as a credible source for belief in gods. The second argument has to do with the historical use of gods to explain unexplained natural phenomena. We see this approach most in evidence today from those who seek to explain alleged yet-to-be-explained cases of biological evolution: so-called "intelligent design". In its most general form, this argument is often characterized as a "God of the Gaps" argument, in that gods are typically used to explain gaps in our knowledge. As we discover natural causes for previously unexplained observations, we abandon the god-explanations. Never the reverse.
The central point here is that gods are only useful as explanations when we don't have a better natural explanation. Over the centuries, the trend has been for us to appeal less and less to supernatural explanations. A reasonable extrapolation of this trend is that no supernatural explanation is reasonable.
Divine Silence
One can reasonably expect that an existing god, if it were able, would make itself known to humans. In fact, the big mystery about the Abrahamic god is why he seems so reluctant to make his presence obvious to everyone. Instead, he relies on a few chosen "prophets" to communicate his will to people. An unfortunate side effect is that there are plenty of false prophets out there at work to take advantage of his reticence.
Christian apologists have devised the "Free Will Defense" (FWD) to explain God's silence. Basically, the idea is that we would somehow be deprived of our freedom to choose to do good if we really knew that there was an all-powerful being that we knew wanted us to do good. By not making his existence plainly evident, God is giving us the "gift" of letting us choose to misbehave. The FWD should not be construed as being of some usefulness to God, because an omniscient being already knows how his creations will choose to behave or misbehave. So it must be for human benefit alone. I suspect that those who choose wrongly end up feeling that it was not such a great benefit, but, what the heck, they deserve it, right?
Ultimately, the FWD is a very flimsy hook on which to hang the existence of God. From an objective point of view, it isn't at all clear why we should find it so difficult to detect the existence of gods. Unless, of course, they don't exist.
Disembodied Brainless Thinkers
For me, this argument is one of the strongest against belief in any gods. Gods are agents. They think, reason, plan, remember, and experience emotions just as humans do. The argument here is that neural science has shown virtually every cognitive ability to be rooted in the functioning of a physical brain. It is extremely unlikely that a mind could exist independently of its physical substrate. The mind evolves as the brain develops from infancy thru adulthood. Its ability to function depends completely on the health of the brain during the life of the organism. It ceases to exist when the brain dies. Gods do not have physical brains. Therefore, gods probably do not exist.![[Image: icon3.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=smilies.vidahost.com%2Fotn%2Ftongue%2Ficon3.gif)
One further note to add here--why thinking behavior (and brains) evolved in animals. Animals, as opposed to most plants, move around in a territory. They compete with each other for resources. They need a sophisticated guidance system, and they need to be able to manipulate objects in their environments. In other words, brains are needed to operate bodies that move. The human mind is certainly the most sophisticated guidance and danger-avoidance system that we know of. It does not seem reasonable to believe that there would be bodiless, brainless beings that would evolve the same kind of goal-directed behavior. That is, human characteristics are a product of a long chain of evolutionary development that meet the survival needs of life forms on a planetary surface. There is no reason why a thinking being should exist without a body to nurture and protect.
Revelation--receiving direct communication from gods--has failed on a colossal scale over human history. First of all, it is the basis for a myriad of competing scriptures, all of which contain inherently contradictory material. Hence, it is clear that most revelation (if not all revelation) from God or gods must be false.
Worse yet, the distribution of religious revelation has been geographically skewed. All religions originated at one geographical point and spread from there. If any revelation had been from a true god or gods, one might reasonably expect parallel versions of the religion to arise in different locations independently of each other, since gods are not as bound by geography as humans are. But that NEVER happens. The calico patterns of religious revelation suggest that, in fact, religious revelation always arises from the imagination of individuals, and spreads from a geographical center. The main reason that people come to believe in gods is not revelation, but tradition--the accident of being born into a region that accepts that revelation and nothing else.
God as a Bad Explanation
The first argument addressed the failure of revelation as a credible source for belief in gods. The second argument has to do with the historical use of gods to explain unexplained natural phenomena. We see this approach most in evidence today from those who seek to explain alleged yet-to-be-explained cases of biological evolution: so-called "intelligent design". In its most general form, this argument is often characterized as a "God of the Gaps" argument, in that gods are typically used to explain gaps in our knowledge. As we discover natural causes for previously unexplained observations, we abandon the god-explanations. Never the reverse.
The central point here is that gods are only useful as explanations when we don't have a better natural explanation. Over the centuries, the trend has been for us to appeal less and less to supernatural explanations. A reasonable extrapolation of this trend is that no supernatural explanation is reasonable.
Divine Silence
One can reasonably expect that an existing god, if it were able, would make itself known to humans. In fact, the big mystery about the Abrahamic god is why he seems so reluctant to make his presence obvious to everyone. Instead, he relies on a few chosen "prophets" to communicate his will to people. An unfortunate side effect is that there are plenty of false prophets out there at work to take advantage of his reticence.
Christian apologists have devised the "Free Will Defense" (FWD) to explain God's silence. Basically, the idea is that we would somehow be deprived of our freedom to choose to do good if we really knew that there was an all-powerful being that we knew wanted us to do good. By not making his existence plainly evident, God is giving us the "gift" of letting us choose to misbehave. The FWD should not be construed as being of some usefulness to God, because an omniscient being already knows how his creations will choose to behave or misbehave. So it must be for human benefit alone. I suspect that those who choose wrongly end up feeling that it was not such a great benefit, but, what the heck, they deserve it, right?
Ultimately, the FWD is a very flimsy hook on which to hang the existence of God. From an objective point of view, it isn't at all clear why we should find it so difficult to detect the existence of gods. Unless, of course, they don't exist.
Disembodied Brainless Thinkers
For me, this argument is one of the strongest against belief in any gods. Gods are agents. They think, reason, plan, remember, and experience emotions just as humans do. The argument here is that neural science has shown virtually every cognitive ability to be rooted in the functioning of a physical brain. It is extremely unlikely that a mind could exist independently of its physical substrate. The mind evolves as the brain develops from infancy thru adulthood. Its ability to function depends completely on the health of the brain during the life of the organism. It ceases to exist when the brain dies. Gods do not have physical brains. Therefore, gods probably do not exist.
One further note to add here--why thinking behavior (and brains) evolved in animals. Animals, as opposed to most plants, move around in a territory. They compete with each other for resources. They need a sophisticated guidance system, and they need to be able to manipulate objects in their environments. In other words, brains are needed to operate bodies that move. The human mind is certainly the most sophisticated guidance and danger-avoidance system that we know of. It does not seem reasonable to believe that there would be bodiless, brainless beings that would evolve the same kind of goal-directed behavior. That is, human characteristics are a product of a long chain of evolutionary development that meet the survival needs of life forms on a planetary surface. There is no reason why a thinking being should exist without a body to nurture and protect.
I used to tell a lot of religious jokes. Not any more, I'm a registered sects offender.
---------------
...the least christian thing a person can do is to become a christian. ~Chuck
---------------
NO MA'AM
![[Image: attemptingtogiveadamnc.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=img824.imageshack.us%2Fimg824%2F7042%2Fattemptingtogiveadamnc.gif)
---------------
...the least christian thing a person can do is to become a christian. ~Chuck
---------------
NO MA'AM
![[Image: bluetongue.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=smilies.vidahost.com%2Fcontrib%2Flynx%2Fbluetongue.gif)
