Counter-Apologetics Series Part IV: First Cause

In such a chain, too, or succession of objects, each part is caused by that which preceded it, and causes that which succeeds it. Where then is the difficulty? But the WHOLE, you say, wants a cause. I answer, that the uniting of these parts into a whole, like the uniting of several distinct countries into one kingdom, or several distinct members into one body, is performed merely by an arbitrary act of the mind, and has no influence on the nature of things. Did I show you the particular causes of each individual in a collection of twenty particles of matter, I should think it very unreasonable, should you afterwards ask me, what was the cause of the whole twenty. This is sufficiently explained in explaining the cause of the parts.

- David Hume

Continue reading…

Counter-Apologetics Series Part III: Pascal’s Wager

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.

- Thomas Jefferson
Continue reading…

Counter-Apologetics Series Part II: Bandwagon argument / Argumentum ad populum

The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd.

- Betrand Russell

Argumentum ad Populum, Latin for “argument to the people,” is a logical fallacy also known as “bandwagon argument,” or many other names. The argument essentially reads that since a majority (or indeed even all) of the people believe something to be true, therefore it is true, or likely to be true. A good example of the flaw of an argument of this type is the belief in a flat Earth. Many cultures, generally until Ancient Greece, and some cultures for a time after that, thought that the Earth was flat. The general majority of people in many cultures believed this, and later on the idea that the Earth was a sphere was proven. Sometimes a theist will answer, when defending the existence of God, that so many people believe in God – indeed a good deal of the world believes in the monotheistic, even Abrahamic God – that therefore his/her belief is justified. Put another way, “so many people in human history have believed in God, and even to this day! They can’t all be wrong!” Conversely, “something like 1% of Americans are atheist, obviously that position is wrong!” These statements indicate nothing and are overtly flawed; arguments of this nature merely prove that a belief is popular. It is only correct to assert that since many people believe in God, it is therefore a popular belief.

Wikipedia entry on Argumentum ad Populum

Iron Chariots entry on the subject

Also, refer to the rest of the series:

Counter-Apologetics Series Part 1: Introduction, Burden of Proof, Scales of Evidence, and Absence of Evidence

Counter-Apologetics Series Part 1: Introduction, Burden of Proof, Scales of Evidence, and Absence of Evidence

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.”- Bertrand Russell, describing what is commonly known as “Russell’s Teapot”

Apologetics comes from the Greek απολογία, or “apology,” which originally meant a ‘defense’. Thus, for example, Plato’s Apology is a defense of Socrates. Historically, apologetics has come to mean a defense of religion, or arguments for the existence of God. The big question for why one is an atheist is, why don’t you believe in God? And, of course, the proper question is not why one does not believe but rather: why does one believe in God? This seems unfair to some religious people — why do we have to defend our claim? You are the atheists trying to bother everyone and tell them what to think! That is not how claims work. The one making the claim must prove it so this series seeks to shed light on each of the defenses of the claim of God’s existence. Apologetics attempts to answer this question. Whether or not there is evidence for God is a separate issue, and I concede this is obviously a large problem for many individuals to take for the sake of argument, and I will address this over time. Thus, arguendo, there is no evidence for God.

Time to time an atheist might ask: can you prove that God exists? Let’s say that the conversation ends in “no, but I have faith.” The theist might posit a question of his own, “but you cannot prove God does not exist!” The theist then scoffs at the notion that the atheist has anything useful at all to say because the atheist doesn’t know whether or not God exists because he cannot prove God does not exist. To some, this exchange is enough to make one an “agnostic” or reach the conclusion that truth is relative (another topic for later in the series). Essentially, this is a fallacy dealing with the burden of proof. A lawyer cannot win a case by saying “you cannot prove that the defendant did not do it!”

There are some concepts that we readily apply (or should apply) to all fields of inquiry:

Absence of evidence does not prove that a thing does not exist.

However, if there is no evidence for something, one should not believe in it if the claim is substantial.

Simply because we have never found a dragon does not mean that dragons do not exist. However, it is a substantial claim that dragons exist. Should people believe in dragons? No. The claim that dragons exist is a positive claim, it asserts something. If I say that no, dragons do not exist, it might be logically flawed — dragons could, perhaps, exist. It is a bit pedantic though, to say in response to dragons, faeries, or whatever else that “I have suspended judgment on whether or not dragons exist since through all observable methods one has never detected a dragon and since I have suspended judgment, I therefore do not believe in dragons as the default position is non-belief.” In fairness, one ought to be able to simply say “dragons do not exist,” or the best statement, at least, should be “I do not believe in dragons.” This is the case, even though there is equal evidence for and against the existence of dragons.

James Randi has a great lecture fragment from a Caltech in 1992 explaining that one “cannot prove a negative” that explains this far better than I can:

Of course, some people argue that there is actually evidence against the existence of God (of course depending on definition). This is a large topic and reserved for a later section.

Further reading:
“You Can’t Prove a Negative” at Skepticwiki.org
You can’t prove God doesn’t exist at Iron Chariots
Burden of Proof at Wikipedia

Holiday message from Ricky Gervais

Ricky Gervais wrote up a small blurb that appeared on the Wall Street Journal blog and quite a few people have bumped it, even Conan O’Brien on twitter.

Ricky Gervais has asked me to tweet this essay on his Atheism. I pray to almighty Zeus nobody reads this trash…

Conan later updated with the following apology:

R. Gervais asked me to tweet an article, and it got some people upset. I’m sorry - I thought Atheism was a branch of the 7th Day Adventists.

Gervais’ article sheds nothing new on the religious criticism front, but the rhetoric is straight-forward. Gervais has a comic spin on many old counter-apologetic arguments:

Why don’t I believe in God? No, no no, why do YOU believe in God? Surely the burden of proof is on the believer. You started all this. If I came up to you and said, “Why don’t you believe I can fly?” You’d say, “Why would I?” I’d reply, “Because it’s a matter of faith.” If I then said, “Prove I can’t fly. Prove I can’t fly see, see, you can’t prove it can you?” You’d probably either walk away, call security or throw me out of the window and shout, ‘’F—ing fly then you lunatic.”

You can read the entire article here.

Don’t psychologize me, bro!

I have touched on this topic before, but I would just like to bring up the topic of psychologizing people’s beliefs and opinions. Merriam Webster’s defines “Pyshchologize” as “to speculate in psychological terms or on psychological motivations.” I think the scientific study of psychology is good. However, when we dialogue about issues surrounding religion and atheism, I would like to ask that we avoid speculating on “hidden” reasons that we believe/don’t believe, and just stick to the facts.

This is one example of psychologizing atheism. The argument that god is a father figure and atheists are just disordered people who have bad relationships with their fathers can probably be traced to it’s intellectual roots in Nietzsche, Freud, and existentialism. Does that mean that god exists? No, of course not. It’s just “poisoning the well” against atheism. (note: I am NOT saying that I have never “poisoned the well” against a particular religion. However, I think this should be avoided, and if you catch me doing it, call me out). Continue reading…

The key to heaven

Many Christians claim that the primary way to get into heaven is through good works. There is, however, substantial reason to not believe that this is true. I submit that it seems wicked to people to not be rewarded for doing good by getting into heaven. It also seems evil that their friends, neighbors and loved ones who do not accept Christ because they are a member of another religion or simply because they are non-believers cannot get into heaven even though they are good people. You often hear this question posed and many Christians pose it themselves: well if I live a good life, or my friend lives a good life, can I get into heaven without accepting Christ? Most Christians, I argue, would think that a fair and just God would still let in people that they love and who they view to have done good deeds. However, it is very hard to escape a literal or metaphorical reading of the Bible’s conclusion on the matter:

Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

NIV John 14:6

Perhaps I am guilty of cherry picking as many religious people do. However, one of the most famous lines of the Bible, said by scholars, theologians, and laymen alike, summarizes the whole of the Bible:

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

NIV John 3:16

Let’s beat a dead horse:

Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.

Acts 4:12

Well, are you SURE that it is only through believing in Jesus and not good works?

…he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit,…

NIV Titus 3:5

And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.

Romans 11:6

Yes, yes I’m sure the Bible conveys this. This issue, however, isn’t like the issues of slavery, homosexuality or anything else people bring up and that apologists defend with the notion that you ‘need to understand the historical and Biblical context.’ Many Christians seem to disregard this notion, however, and accept that they will get into heaven because they are good (which is not guaranteed by the Bible, even if you are a believer). Even the Christians who seem to disregard the notions I have submitted claim to adhere to the Bible. The thing is, people don’t adhere to the Bible. The Bible, instead, is just an excuse for them to create a way for them to believe that God wants what they want. Is homosexuality a sin? These people don’t look at the Bible, they ask themselves instead. This is, in many instances, a great relief. People do not subscribe to the great deal of terribleness in the Bible, but instead often think for themselves. When we look at such a core tenant of Christianity though, such as entrance to heaven and belief in Christ, it gives me some hope that maybe religious people aren’t that far off from disregarding the Bible entirely.
Well, as a final note, in the line of Pascal’s wager, what if I am wrong? Well if I somehow were, it doesn’t concern me much since the person asking somehow thinks I can redeem myself (not that I am looking to):

And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

NIV Matthew 12:31-32

It is nice that such a just God would regularly forgive graven trespasses such as murder, rape, pillaging, etc. (Paul/Saul, amongst others) but my trespasses, should such a God exist, are unforgivable.