There is No God (And You Know It)
By Sam Harris for The Huffington Post
November 3, 2005
Somewhere in the world a man has abducted a little girl. Soon he will rape, torture, and kill her. If an atrocity of this kind not occurring at precisely this moment, it will happen in a few hours, or days at most. Such is the confidence we can draw from the statistical laws that govern the lives of six billion human beings. The same statistics also suggest that this girl’s parents believe -- at this very moment -- that an all-powerful and all-loving God is watching over them and their family. Are they right to believe this? Is it good that they believe this? No. The entirety of atheism is contained in this response. Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply a refusal to deny the obvious. Unfortunately, we live in a world in which the obvious is overlooked as a matter of principle. The obvious must be observed and re-observed and argued for. This is a thankless job. It carries with it an aura of petulance and insensitivity. It is, moreover, a job that the atheist does not want.
It is worth noting that no one ever need identify himself as a non-astrologer or a non-alchemist. Consequently, we do not have words for people who deny the validity of these pseudo-disciplines. Likewise, “atheism” is a term that should not even exist. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make when in the presence of religious dogma. The atheist is merely a person who believes that the 260 million Americans (eighty-seven percent of the population) who claim to “never doubt the existence of God” should be obliged to present evidence for his existence -- and, indeed, for his benevolence, given the relentless destruction of innocent human beings we witness in the world each day. Only the atheist appreciates just how uncanny our situation is: most of us believe in a God that is every bit as specious as the gods of Mount Olympus; no person, whatever his or her qualifications, can seek public office in the United States without pretending to be certain that such a God exists; and much of what passes for public policy in our country conforms to religious taboos and superstitions appropriate to a medieval theocracy. Our circumstance is abject, indefensible, and terrifying. It would be hilarious if the stakes were not so high.
Consider: the city of New Orleans was recently destroyed by hurricane Katrina. At least a thousand people died, tens of thousands lost all their earthly possessions, and over a million have been displaced. It is safe to say that almost every person living in New Orleans at the moment Katrina struck believed in an omnipotent, omniscient, and compassionate God. But what was God doing while a hurricane laid waste to their city? Surely He heard the prayers of those elderly men and women who fled the rising waters for the safety of their attics, only to be slowly drowned there. These were people of faith. These were good men and women who had prayed throughout their lives. Only the atheist has the courage to admit the obvious: these poor people spent their lives in the company of an imaginary friend. Of course, there had been ample warning that a storm “of biblical proportions” would strike New Orleans, and the human response to the ensuing disaster was tragically inept. But it was inept only by the light of science. Advance warning of Katrina’s path was wrested from mute Nature by meteorological calculations and satellite imagery. God told no one of his plans. Had the residents of New
Orleans been content to rely on the beneficence of the Lord, they wouldn’t have known that a killer hurricane was bearing down upon them until they felt the first gusts of wind on their faces. And yet, a poll conducted by The Washington Post found that eighty percent of Katrina’s survivors claim that the event has only strengthened their faith in God.
As hurricane Katrina was devouring New Orleans, nearly a thousand Shiite pilgrims were trampled to death on a bridge in Iraq. There can be no doubt that these pilgrims believed mightily in the God of the Koran. Indeed, their lives were organized around the indisputable fact of his existence: their women walked veiled before him; their men regularly murdered one another over rival interpretations of his word. It would be remarkable if a single survivor of this tragedy lost his faith. More likely, the survivors imagine that they were spared through God’s grace. Only the atheist recognizes the boundless narcissism and self-deceit of the saved. Only the atheist realizes how morally objectionable it is for survivors of a catastrophe to believe themselves spared by a loving God, while this same God drowned infants in their cribs. Because he refuses to cloak the reality of the world’s suffering in a cloying fantasy of eternal life, the atheist feels in his bones just how precious life is -- and, indeed, how unfortunate it is that millions of human beings suffer the most harrowing abridgements of their happiness for no good reason at all.
Of course, people of faith regularly assure one another that God is not responsible for human suffering. But how else can we understand the claim that God is both omniscient and omnipotent? There is no other way, and it is time for sane human beings to own up to this. This is the age-old problem of theodicy, of course, and we should consider it solved. If God exists, either He can do nothing to stop the most egregious calamities, or He does not care to. God, therefore, is either impotent or evil. Pious readers will now execute the following pirouette: God cannot be judged by merely human standards of morality. But, of course, human standards of morality are precisely what the faithful use to establish God’s goodness in the first place. And any God who could concern himself with something as trivial as gay marriage, or the name by which he is addressed in prayer, is not as inscrutable as all that. If He exists, the God of Abraham is not merely unworthy of the immensity of creation; he is unworthy even of man.
There is another possibility, of course, and it is both the most reasonable and least odious: the biblical God is a fiction. As Richard Dawkins has observed, we are all atheists with respect to Zeus and Thor. Only the atheist has realized that the biblical god is no different. Consequently, only the atheist is compassionate enough to take the profundity of the world’s suffering at face value. It is terrible that we all die and lose everything we love; it is doubly terrible that so many human beings suffer needlessly while alive. That so much of this suffering can be directly attributed to religion -- to religious hatreds, religious wars, religious delusions, and religious diversions of scarce resources -- is what makes atheism a moral and intellectual necessity. It is a necessity, however, that places the atheist at the margins of society. The atheist, by merely being in touch with reality, appears shamefully out of touch with the fantasy life of his neighbors.
26 comments:
Uberchap said, "Faith helps us (well, me, anyway) cope with adversity ..." -- Is that a reason to believe, though? Isn't that just a god of convenience? As Voltaire said, "If there were no God, it would have been necessary to invent him." All too many people believe in God because they NEED to believe in him.
i agree, i think regardless of if there is God or not.. we need a power figure... if there is no fear of a power bigger than us.. many people would spiral out of control.. since there is no retribution.. why cant i do what i want?
uberchap said: Where do I start... Why do I bother ! Why should I care about Sam Harrison's standard well trodden path of a view ?
Actually I’m glad that you *do* bother. As to caring about Sam’s comments… I’m not sure why you should. I think that Sam Harris (not Harrison) is bringing up the old Problem of Evil thing – or ‘Why do Bad things happen to Good people? It’s a valid question I think and one that has yet to be answered to my satisfaction.
uberchap said: And then there's the "How could a loving God let all this happen ? " so called argument. He used a graphically powerful image of the rape of a child to make his cheap point. Just like Dawkins. Never hold back from cheap and tacky situations to make your tabloid points.
They may be emotive tabloid points – but they are still valid ones. Such ‘cheap & tacky’ examples do happen with depressing regularity.
uberchap said: We have free will. If God was to exert His omnipotence to avert all suffering then we'd all complain. Athiests the loudest, no doubt. Christians are not God's glove puppets.
I think that we both agree that humans do indeed have Free Will – though I’m guessing that we would disagree as to where that Free Will comes from (and maybe on the actual definition of Free Will). However, I don’t think that the idea of Free Will gets around the Problem of Evil. I’m also not too sure if we’d ‘all’ complain about a bit of suffering being averted from time to time.
uberchap said: Shit happens. People are bad. Some are very bad. Disasters happen. Science tells us why earthquakes occur. We are in a dynamic world with people acting freely. What do you expect ?
Shit does indeed happen. Some people are indeed very bad. Disasters do happen too. We seem to be agreeing on a lot today. What confuses me though is where God comes into the equation. If He cares for us so much then why does He allow so much carnage to take place? Free Will has little to do with earthquakes, tsunamis or hurricanes for instance. Why does God allow the loss of so many innocent lives in ‘natural’ disasters?
uberchap said: Faith helps us (well, me, anyway) cope with adversity. I don't blame God for my sins of omission or commission; or those of others.
I am aware that faith in a Higher Order does have its compensations.
uberchap said: Natural disasters, human tragedy and personal loss have so far made me not lose my faith. Christians who think that they are protected or "special" are misguided. So, athiests who think that God can give this to them and others too are missing the point. As usual.
So, if Christians are not protected against being collateral damage in Gods Plan (or innocent, but dead, bystanders of His wrath) then what is the point in being believers? Presumably in order to gain access to Heaven?
uberchap said: That is the truth about faith that you may be seeking. Whether you accept it is up to you. But I suggest that you listen less to athiests to understand faith.
That’s why I value your returning to leave comments here Uberchap. Although I like people agreeing with me as much as the next person I do enjoy hearing the voices of dissent if they are willing to engage in reasonable debate. I know that we would probably disagree on just about everything but that’s what makes things interesting between us…
dbackdad said: Uberchap said, "Faith helps us (well, me, anyway) cope with adversity ..." -- Is that a reason to believe, though? Isn't that just a god of convenience? As Voltaire said, "If there were no God, it would have been necessary to invent him." All too many people believe in God because they NEED to believe in him.
I recently had a conversation with a ex-atheist now Christian who pointed out that all of the Christians he knows are happy people. Apparently their happiness stems from their religion. Fair enough I said. But that isn’t reason enough for me to start believing in God.
adelaine said: i agree, i think regardless of if there is God or not.. we need a power figure... if there is no fear of a power bigger than us.. many people would spiral out of control.. since there is no retribution.. why cant i do what i want?
Welcome Adeline & thanks for your comment. However I can’t but disagree with you. Behaviour based on fear cannot be moral or ethical. Although some people might need external threats to keep them under control I doubt if this is how the majority of people think or act. You seem to be implying that those without fear of God cannot or would not act in a moral way. Conversely you seem to be implying that those theists who do fear God would act morally even when they really didn’t want to. This doesn’t really stack up does it? Not all criminals are atheists and not all good people are theists. People behave well or badly for a variety of reasons and not purely on their belief of punishment by God or any other ‘higher’ authority.
Of course, people of faith regularly assure one another that God is not responsible for human suffering.
They do indeed. But then, how can they claim that God is responsible for saving them from suffering? If he's not blamed for creating the suffering in the first place, how come he gets all the credit for someone not dying because of it? Especially when others receive no saving whatsoever. If one person is basking in the glory of God, having been saved from disaster (like the Shiite bridge accident) whilst another person, at the very same moment, is panicking and dying in a hurricane-induced flood, what does that say about God? If he's amazing and glorious for saving one person, then isn't he cruel and unfeeling for not saving another?
I have serious trouble equating the two.
skywolf said: I have serious trouble equating the two.
Me too. It always amuses me (in an ironic sort of way) when the lone survivor of an aircrash is seen as a miracle and somehow shows God's mercy or something. I can't help thinking that the other 349 people who *died* in the crash might have other ideas....
I’m also not too sure if we’d ‘all’ complain about a bit of suffering being averted from time to time.
-cyberkitten
The problem with that statement is that when suffering is averted by divine intervention or because it was God's will for suffering to be averted--how would you know where your help comes from? Who would you live to thank if you suddenly were sick with cancer and then MIRACULOUSLY that cancer disappeared? Would you wonder why your suffering was averted? Would you thank God for allowing you to see another day or would you just go about your life claiming "I defeated cancer!"
People are spared suffering countless times in accordance with His purpose and they are also allowed to suffer for His glory--in both instances; Christians persevere and know who to thank for their blessings and trials.
Sadie said: The problem with that statement is that when suffering is averted by divine intervention or because it was God's will for suffering to be averted--how would you know where your help comes from?
Exactly my point.. and yet you seem to jump to the conclusion that 'God did it'.
Your example of the spontaneous remission of cancer is typical of this sort of reasoning. How could this have possibly happened? We're not exactly sure, say the doctors. Therefore, you reason, God *must* have done it.
From your point of view that's pretty obvious but from mine I'd say that we don't know enough about cancer to say why some people get better and others die. If we had 100 cancer patients & didn't intervene medically and two of them went into spontaneous remission would that be proof of divine intervention? Of course not as the other 98 died. Now if after medical intervention 65 lived plus the 2 who went spontaneous what would we call that? The appliance of science plus a medical mystery...
When things happen that we don't understand it doesn't mean that God stepped in and changed things. Why doesn't God just cure cancer? Why does he allow innocent children to die every day of preventable disease? The odd, apparently inexplicable, recovery proves absolutely nothing.
But then you never really expected me to agree did you?
No. I didn't expect you to agree but I have to be honest and say that a little part of me hopes that one day, I'll say something that will cause your fingers to pause over the keyboard with thought--even if this thought is small and fleeting, I want to cause you to question yourself, even for a moment.
:)
My frustration with you is that you would only believe in God if we lived in a trouble-free world where everyone gets along and everybody dies from natural causes.
This kind of thinking is flawed.
uberchap touched on this point by saying we are not God's puppets but I'd like to expand on that thought by saying, there would be no responsibility on man if God made everything all peachy-keen.
We humans are responsible for our own actions. Your logic that God should prevent us from hurting each other is everything I hate about our society.
We rob each other of joy every, single day and we have nobody to blame but ourselves.
Look at our lawsuits. Kids sueing their parents for making them fat by allowing them to eat at McDonalds. Parents sueing McDonalds for making fatening foods.
My a-hole tenant blaming me for evicting her because she's can't pay the rent and I, somehow, should feel sorry for her and leave her alone.
I don't sit back and blame God for allowing this trial to happen, I praise him for bringing me through it without resorting to violence.
I would love to walk into MY home and drag this woman out by the hair but that isn't right. She needs to pay the consequences of her actions and I need to do this eviction by the law.
I will be rewarded for being the bigger person later--
sadie said: No. I didn't expect you to agree but I have to be honest and say that a little part of me hopes that one day, I'll say something that will cause your fingers to pause over the keyboard with thought--even if this thought is small and fleeting, I want to cause you to question yourself, even for a moment.
You never know. It might happen one day. Stranger things have happened! What about you though? Do *I* ever give you pause for thought on theological issues?
sadie said: My frustration with you is that you would only believe in God if we lived in a trouble-free world where everyone gets along and everybody dies from natural causes.
Not so. Such a world would indeed be *far* better than the one we live in ATM - but would not be any more proof of God than our present world. It would take more than an achieved human utopia to get me to believe in a divine being.
sadie said: We humans are responsible for our own actions.
I totally agree. Ultimately we are responsible for everything we do. Things like personal background and such can be taken into consideration but if a person is of sound mind then they are totally responsible for what they do.
sadie said: Your logic that God should prevent us from hurting each other is everything I hate about our society.
That's not what I meant. It's that pesky 'problem of evil' again and the idea of God-given free will. I agreed with uberchap that there are indeed bad people in the world and that they are bad mostly because they choose to be so. Unfortunately free will doesn't explain why children get cancer and why innocent people die in natural disasters. Even if God did not cause these things to happen He could, if He so wished, do something about them. Either He cannot or He choses not to intervene. If He cannot intervene then He is not God and if He choses not to intervene then He is not a loving caring God but at best an unfeeling one.
Sadie said: We rob each other of joy every, single day and we have nobody to blame but ourselves.
I agree with you again. The hateful things that happen every day are caused by us - by man's inhumanity to man. They are not caused by God nor can they be willed away by God and for a very simple reason. He does not exist.
uberchap - thanks for returning to this 'frothy' debate...
uberchap said: Belief in God does not mean that anything will be easy and comfortable and nice.
I don't think that I said that anywhere did I?
uberchap said: God does exist, by the way, cyberkitten, and your inability to acknowledge that does not change anything.
You *say* that God exists and you *believe* that God exists but this does not *mean* that God does exists. Why should I acknowlege the existence of something merely because you and others assert it to be true?
uberchap said: Your denial is really rather meaningless and based simply on a difficulty in understanding how bad things can happen to good people.
Actually my disbelief in God (as I have stated many times) is based on the toal absense of evidence to support the idea of His existence.
uberchap said: Belief is not preventive. It strenghens resolve to deal with adversity.
I'm sure that it does. If belief had no utility it would have vanished long ago.
uberchap said: In one sense I hope you never have to draw upon it. But in another, I do.
Gee, thanks. You wish that bad things would happen to me & expect that because of them I would suddenly believe in God. Is God *so* needy of recognition that He needs *me* to turn to Him in times of adversity?
uberchap said God exists for you and everyone whether you like it or not. He is bigger than your intellectual arguments and certainly those of people like Dawkins.
So you keep asserting - but saying doesn't make it so. I doubt very much that I could undermine your faith by simply repeating that these is no God. Why then do you think I would suddenly change my position because you keep repeating that there is? Don't you have any better arguments?
uberchap said: No. I was not wishing for bad things to happen to you.
I guess that I must have misinterpreted it when you said: It strenghens resolve to *deal with adversity*. In one sense I hope you never have to draw upon it. *But in another, I do*. Is being forced to deal with advesity wishing someone ill...? It seemed that way to me.
uberchap said: Your loss although you don't know it.
..and if I don't know it how can it be a 'loss' exactly?
uberchap said: I know that my saying so will not change your mind. But neither does you denial of God's existence make him vanish.
I think it's quite difficult to get something I don't believe in the first place to vanish. I doubt whatever I (or anyone else) said could make anything vanish actually...
uberchap said: I don't have any arguments. Neither do you, actually. I don't need any, though.
Oh, I think that I *lots* of arguments actually [grin]. But then I don't have faith so I need them to justify my position.
uberchap said: Evidence is everywhere.
Not as far as I'm concerned. I suspect that what you and I regard as evidence are two very different beasts. I've had evidence pointed out to me before. Everything from the existence of the Universe itself to my existence.. together with trees and just about everything else you could imagine. None of which is evidence for the existence of God.
uberchap said: Your many assertions that belief in God undermines scientific principles such as the theory of evolution is false.
Evolution per se does not address the issue of Gods existence. What it *does* say is that there is a perfectly adequate explanation of lifes diversity without the need of a deity. So-called Intelligent Design is a crock. As to a belief in God & Science being incompatable.. Yup. Can't have both I'm afraid. A scientific Universe is a Godless Universe.
ubercap asked: What's the point of this Blog ?
Actually I started it on a whim. It's fun to debate issues like this with other people from all around the world and I believe that I've made a few friends along the way. Does it need to have any higher purpose?
uberchap said: Well, that's your call and I don't want to rain on your parade but you seem to be regurgitating the same old stuff that you did when I first came across this blog.
There are probably only a small number of theological arguments so its hardly surprising that we're going over old ground - that and there seems to be no actually answers to move on from... In the year or so I've been Blogging I've seen about 5-6 arguments for God put forward time and time again too.
uberchap said: I stray in from time to time basically to have my faith challenged and strengthened and to learn more about what others believe and why.
Happy to have you here uber. Drop in anytime. Glad to be of use to you.
uberchap--
Thanks for the compliment. I think it does a person good to listen to the opposing viewpoint once in awhile. So I feel that I am a benefit to cyberkitten and he is a benefit to me.
Cy--
I'm confused, how can you agree with me on the issue of man being ultimately responsible for their actions AND blame God for the bad things that happen to good people?
To clarify, if God does exist, your problem with him is that he allows bad things to happen to people but my question is:
Where does the responsiblity of the evil in the world lie? With God or Man?
Sorry for any confusion Sadie.
I don't blame God for anything - as I don't believe He exists.
The responsibility of man-made 'evil' clearly rest with man. There is no other place for it *to* rest. No supernatural force is forcing people to commit 'evil' acts. It's all down to us.
I also believe that God and science are wholly compatible. I still don't know whether God exists, mind you, but if he does my acceptance of science would not be shaken in the slightest. And as I have said before (somewhere...), I personally see science as strong support for the existence of God, and in no way an argument against God.
It kind of amuses me when I see a theist and an atheist arguing, I have to say. One says 'God exists, whether you can accept it or not', and the other says 'Nope, sorry, there's definitely no God'. Both of you are equally adamant in your positions. Neither of you can be in any way swayed by the other. And neither of you has evidence or personal experience that will convince the other. So how can you both be so completely adamant? No one can prove that there is or isn't a God. At least, it hasn't happened yet.
I was just commenting on the existence or non-existence of souls over at Kevin's blog. Personally, I believe we have souls because I have strong personal experiences to back that up. But I wouldn't dream of stating my own experience as abject fact. I can't say 'Souls do exist, and you're wrong if you think they don't', because regardless of my own conviction on the subject I have absolutely no evidence that another person would accept. Just as a theist bases their belief in God on personal experience or 'testimony', so I base my belief in a soul. But I cannot possibly use my experiences to backup my arguments. I can only use them to explain why I believe in the soul. Someone who doesn't has as much right to that belief as I do in my belief. At the end of the day, we don't have irrefutable proof. So everyone has to reach their own conclusions whilst fully accepting the differing conclusions of others.
Don't ya think?
The same statistics also suggest that this girl’s parents believe -- at this very moment -- that an all-powerful and all-loving God is watching over them and their family. Are they right to believe this? Is it good that they believe this? No. The entirety of atheism is contained in this response.
Based on the article--the entirety of atheism is contained in a response to violence. So I'm confused, cyberkitten, how you can agree with me that man is resposible for evil? It sounds like the article is saying that all atheism concludes that God would be in the business of preventing evil and since evil is present--God doesn't exist. But you said man is responsible for evil so it would seem to me that there is a possibilty that God does, in fact, exist and that he can be present while allowing man to be evil.
It's confusing.
I want to state that I agree with everything uberchap just said above me.
I didn't even *want* to believe in God, let alone feel the *need* to.
I was compelled, by evidence, to accept that God is real. And it wasn't because I was dealing with an injury or a failing marriage or a "sinful" lifestyle where I hit "rock bottom" my salvation story is that I just realized there is a God and I could either believe it and be saved or refuse it and get back to dying.
And uberchap is right, Christians do not have to refuse science in order to have faith. Both can exist quite matter of factly.
The Big bang Theory, i.e. Something From Nothing, is the real crock. And it's kind of weird how atheists will make Christian out to look ignorant or stupid for believe in something they have no *proof* of but was is the Big Bang Theory? Prove THAT.
:)
uberchap said: I believe in God and I trust in science to explain how things are. Your universe may be Godless but mine isn't.
The reason that I believe that God & Science are incompatable is this:
Science is based on observation, theory and experimental results (to over simplify things). That's all very well in a Godless universe. We observe what's going on out there, we think up a theory to explan it & then we test the theory with experimentation. Now add God into the picture (or actually any supernatural agency that can affect the physical universe). Given the powers that some of these agencies have it might be wholly possible to observe 'X' one week and begin to formulate a theory only for God (etc..) to change 'X' for their own reasons. This means that the observations from the first week are now worthless and it quickly become apparent that observations cannot be trusted because they cannot be relied upon to be the same next week or next year. If observations are unreliable it would be impossible to have reliable theories. Without reliable theories you cannot design experiments to test them. Further, if the results of experiments are unreliable (because of possible supernatural intervention) they cannot be trusted to test any theory since you cannot rely on the results from week to week. If none of these processes can be trusted then science is no longer possible. In order for science to be a valid pursuit that it *must* be predicated on a Godless non-supernatural Universe. You could say that God does not tamper with the Universe but the problem remains that he *could* if He so wished to do so (and presumably the same goes for other supernatural agencies). How do we know that God might not decide to abondon what we know as the Laws of Physics tomorrow or next year for His own reasons? We might be past the so-called Age of Miracles but how do we know this for certain?
uberchap said: I can still accept Darwin's Theory of Evolution without feeling that it encroaches on my faith.
As do many Christians (including the Pope I understand).
uberchap said: To merely dismiss faith as "unscientific" because you can't accept both concepts is hardly scientific as you are constraining the existence of things by the limits of your understanding.
Faith is unscientific by definition. Faith is not based on scientific principles - if it was it would surely be called science & not faith..? Can you explain to me how faith can be scientific? How is dismissing a faith postion unscientific? It may be prejudiced (which it is) but I don't understand where the science bit comes in.
uberchap said: There are many cleverer than the two of us who believe in God and there are many who don't. There are also many eminent scientists who do. And there are telly voxpop scientists like Dawkins who don't who have ditched the very scientific principles they claim to support to further the sale of their vapid scribblings.
The fact that lots of people believe in God (or anything else for that matter) means nothing. The fact that scientists or highly intelligent people believe something to be true also means nothing. Just because a person *believes* in a position is irrelevant to the truth of that position. Truth is attained through argument and evidence not belief.
uberchap said: I know it's nice to have popular people sharing in your beliefs but how you can turn a blind eye to the coach and horses you can drive through Dawkins' "arguments" defeats me really.
I certainly don't believe every word that comes out of Richard Dawkin's mouth. I do however agree with his conclusions. We both do not believe in God or other supernatural beings. I however, do not base my atheism purely on the works or the arguments of one man.
uberchap said: I have never said in any post anywhere at all ever that i "need" to believe in God to explain life's diversity. Why to reply implying that i did ?
It was never my intention to imply that. I was stating was *my* understanding of the implications of Evolution - that we do not need a deity to explain the diversity of life on Earth.
uberchap said: ID is a crock of shit. I agree. I have NEVER supported it. You imply that I have. Hence the capitals of annoyance.
Again, it was never my intention to imply that. Again I was stating *my* position. I think that it would be rather tedious if I started all of my statements with "I believe.." As far as I know such beliefs are implied by the fact that I am stating them. I normally make every effort not to put my words in other peoples mouths as I find it unhygenic.
uberchap said: Evolution as an explanation of the mechanism by which species diversified and adapted. It doesn't explain how life began, though.
Agreed. Evolution says little to nothing of the origin of life on Earth.
uberchap finally said: Believe what you like CK but don't think you can misquoe me or other Christians to further your athiesm.
I do my best not to 'misquote' anyone here which is why I post "X" said: followed by a cut & paste from a previous comment. Also I don't believe that I'm trying to 'further' my atheism whatever that means or even if its enirely possible for me to do so. As I've said many times before I can barely imagine that I would or could challenge anyone's faith enough for them to abandon it. As I've found (and been told) many times - faith goes beyond mere argument.
Looks like this is an A and B conversation and I will C my way out of it.
har har
uberchap said: You often quote what "theists" believe and then attempt to go on to rubbish it.
Well, I might put forward my suppositions of what I understand theists believe (or at least some of them) but the only theists I quote here are those who comment here. I quote them and then debate the point they bring up or attempt to answer their questions if I can.
uberchap said: Your difficulty with rationalising God and science, so to speak, are yours.
Indeed. They could hardly be anyone elses.
uberchap said: You making false assumptions about God's omnipotence and will to refute Him, or, his existence, rather.
I am putting forward my interpretation of my understanding of Gods "omnipotence and will" and the conclusions I have drawn from them. You believe they are false. I do not.
uberchap said: But I suppose that is is wrong to question you for that because as a contented atheist you have no reason to represent faith correctly.
Yes, I am a fairly contented atheist. As to representing faith 'correctly' I'm not sure what you mean by that. I was unaware that there is much agreement on 'correct' faith within the *very* broad church of theism. But then again its not exactly something I have spent a great deal of my time studying.
uberchap said: Your statement about God's ability to change the laws of physics or whatever are no more denying of his existence than me attempting to question evolution by asking "What came first; the chicken or the egg?"
It's just part of the equation for me. BTW - the egg came first.
uberchap asked: Are you a scientist, by the way?
Well, my degree is in Sociology (sort of) so... No, not really. [grin]. I do have an interest in science though. I know what you mean about the 'grey' areas in scientific endeavour. Things are never really as black & white as school text books present things (for example).
uberchap said: My faith tells me that God would not change the laws of physics on a whim.
Aren't miracles at least a local suspension of natural law? Maybe they are not generated at His 'whim'.. but still the known Laws of the universe are violated by a supernatural being. How can we do science in an environment where miracles happen?
uberchap said: Now you can chose the faithful to explain God to you and maybe learn something and develop more comprehensive arguments.
The faithful have been trying to explain God to me for some time now. So far they have failed in a rather spectacular fashion. Probably because I find their explanations - on the whole - to be nonsensical.
uberchap said: You've posted that you find the possibility of alien life more credible than the existence of God. Explain that!
Easily. Aliens, if they exist, will be physical beings adapted to their environments through billions of years of evolution. We have a fair idea what their likely body chemistry will look like and what types of planets they will inhabit. We have evidence of life spontaneously emerging on one world (so far) and think that if suitable conditions exist for long enough that life will spontaneously emerge in other places too. The universe is *very* big and *very* old. There are *lots* of planets out there. The odds of other planets developing life are significant. Meanwhile there is zero evidence anywhere we have looked to support the idea of God. Therefore alien life is *much* more likely than God. Hence I find it more plausable that aliens exist than God.
uberchap said: Perhaps God is an alien ?
But would he still be God?
uberchap said: By the way cyberkitten your quip about it being "unhygenic" for you to put words in my mouth is anatomically incorrect, virtually impossible and not fitting for someone who wishes to conduct a mature debate!
It would appear that not only do you understand my arguments, but you also fail to understand my humour. I'll do my best to tag on a [grin] when I make jokes in future.
Um... I'm pretty sure CK was talking about Earth when he mentioned our evidence for life having spontaneously appeared on at least one planet. I also agree that the odds of life existing on other planets are so undeniably massive that to assume that we're the only planet that has life is preposterous and arrogant at best.
By the way miracles are not evidence of the bending of the laws of physics, they are demonstrations of faith.
Faith, perhaps, in that maybe you need to have faith in order to believe that a miracle can occur. But that doesn't mean that the actual event of a miracle (such as turning water into wine or bringing to life corpses that have been thoroughly dead for days) isn't messing around with scientific principles as we know them. Wine has many chemical components that water lacks. In order for them to suddenly appear in some ordinary water, thereby changing that water chemically from H2O into wine must involve tampering with science, mustn't it? But then again, perhaps we don't know nearly as much as we think about science, and there are ways such 'miracles' could have been performed withouth tampering with scientific principles. Maybe it's possible to stop time if you know how, and to work outside of it, and maybe Jesus simply stopped time, went and got a jug of wine and ditched the water, thereby making it seem as though he'd turned the water into wine directly. Sounds a little crazy, but who knows? Either something occurred through scientific means that we just haven't discovered yet, or God did tamper with science. Or such a miracle never occurred at all. It has to be one of those options, doesn't it?
As for the Big Bang, I don't personally think it's as crazy as it sounds. I mean, we know from observing the universe that there are areas where vast amounts of matter are sucked in and destroyed (possibly?) and hugely condensed into relatively miniscule points... black holes. So if something (stars, gasses, etc.) can be practically turned into nothing, why can't the process be reversed? No idea... I'm not a physicist. But black holes completely astound me, and we have clear evidence of their existence. So something else just slightly more astounding shouldn't automatically be dismissed just because we don't yet have a full understanding of it. IMO.
skywolf said: Um... I'm pretty sure CK was talking about Earth when he mentioned our evidence for life having spontaneously appeared on at least one planet.
That's *exactly* what I meant. Thanks.
skywolf said: I also agree that the odds of life existing on other planets are so undeniably massive that to assume that we're the only planet that has life is preposterous and arrogant at best.
Yup. Agreed. The universe is too big, too old & too full of planets to have no other life in it. If we are indeed alone I for one will be *very* surprised.
skywolf said: Either something occurred through scientific means that we just haven't discovered yet, or God did tamper with science. Or such a miracle never occurred at all. It has to be one of those options, doesn't it?
Good answer. Either the miracle happened or it didn't. If it *did* happen then it either violated the known laws or our knowledge of those laws is incomplete. Which does mean, of course, that when our knowledge increases to that level that we can 'perform miracles' too... As Clarke said - "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" or in this case God.
skywolf said: So something else just slightly more astounding shouldn't automatically be dismissed just because we don't yet have a full understanding of it.
I certainly don't understand everything about the Big Bang - as most of it is mathematics *way* above my pay-grade. However, there does seem to be a significant amount of evidence to support the idea. Our understanding of the origins of our universe are in its early stages. However, just because we don't know the full details (and could be wrong about what we think we already know) doesn't mean that we are required to put God forward as a solution to the problem. I would hope that the 'Here be dragons' attitude has become untenable. A simple 'Unknown' should be sufficient these days...
uberchap said: You assume because of your athiesm that emergence of life on earth was spontaneous. I assume from a standpoint of faith that it was created by God.
Life began on Earth something like 400 million years after it formed - not long after it was cool enough to allow life to exist. There is no evidence (as far as I know) that it came from somewhere else. It is highly likely that it originated here. As I am a naturalist I look for natural explanations of things. There is no evidence that life did not emerge by natural means, therefore it is logical to assume that life spontaneously emerged on Earth. To go back to an earlier discussion.. since Earth is by no means unique in the universe (highly unlikely anyway) it is probable that other earth-type planets exist. If they do exist and life naturally emerges given time and the right conditions - it is highly likely that life emerging on Earth is not a unique event...
uberchap said: Anyone with half a mind to concentrate on your arguments can see what you're doing and it does you no favours.
What exactly *am* I doing? I'd be interested to know what you think my agenda is...
uberchap said: Even the lauded Dawkins is being questioned, from all corners, for his style of delivery. Why not learn that from him ?
Erm, so what? Dawkins is being criticised... That's hardly new. He has very strong opinions and is not afraid to speak his mind. I have read several of his books and can't help but admire him. I have actually learnt a great deal from his work and you will not be surprised to learn that I became a confirmed Darwinian because of him. Yes, his style can be very abrasive and (as I've already stated) he can make me cringe at times. I don't however think that I'm quite as forthright as he is. I am merely confident that my beliefs are correct on the God issue.
Miracles ? They happen all the time. As you know. take an electronic calculator back 200 years and you'd be showing magic.
Our understanding of the physical laws is changing all the time. Miracles yesterday are commonplace events now.
This was actually my point. Either miracles as described in the Bible were caused by scientific principles anuknown to the observers at the time (or ones still unknown to us now), or God was messing with science. Or they didn't happen.
So are you also saying that perhaps Jesus wasn't doing anything especially miraculous? Maybe I'm missing the point... but I'm a little confused as to how this supports your belief that miracles are 'demonstrations of faith'.
And I wasn't name-calling by referring to a denial of life on other planets as 'arrogant'. It wasn't directed at you specifically, uberchap, so I'm sorry if it came across that way. I just think humanity in general comes across as a very arrogant species if we can't allow for the strong likelihood of life (particularly intelligent life) existing on planets besides our own. And it's astonishing how many people do still cling to the belief that we're the only ones. In the entire, incomprehensibly massive universe. Mind-boggling.
anuknown?!
Interesting word.
Should have been unknown. *rolls eyes*
Faith, like love is a virtue, and therefor you cant measure it. Faith has instrictic value, meaning its useful on its own, its good in of it itself. You cant break faith because it has no parts its unanalyzable.Science cant prove or define everything, you can't define Beethovens masterpieces as a variation of wave pressure (Einstein). It loses its meaning.
Post a Comment