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.
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.
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.
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.
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, giving advice to his nephew.
It seems to me that everyone has an idea of what God wants. Just as everyone has a notion of how Rome fell – it was the fornication! No, it was the hording by the wealthy! Overexpansion of the empire! And so on. Let me suggest then my version of what God wants, or would want. God would have us celebrate what makes us humans distinct from the animal kingdom, our capacity for morality and reason that distinguish us so drastically.
The arguments over why we are different from the animal kingdom persist. Some even say we are not at all – we are a part of it. While there is wisdom to this, we all know that we are not quite the same as the rest of the species on this Earth. Yet, it is sometimes difficult to pinpoint what exactly the property is that makes us so different. The word intelligence (especially through the meanings of legere, to pick out, choose, or read) for example, used to mean being able to choose, to pick between things. We did not think that animals could make decisions, or choose (beyond such things as fight or flight, of course which we attributed to automatic functions). So then, animals seem to be a kind of intelligent. But they don’t seem to be intelligent quite like we are. Imagine you were raised on an island, and never interacted with any people. Imagine then, the language that you would use. It would be virtually non-existent (I concede animals have a language of a type). Now imagine a syllogism forming in your mind in that context. The two notions seem incompatible. I suggest that animals are stuck in this phase of reasoning. I would posit that no animal can understand logic and reason the way we can, and if they do, it would fall apart shortly after the syllogism. This difference seems to be distinct to me, if all other living things on the planet cannot quite do this, whether we gained these by natural selection or by God, these are faculties we should value.
There is a reluctance to view ourselves as part of the animal kingdom. When looking at this issue we should embrace our similarities with animals in order to better motivate ourselves to protect the environment and treat animals well. However, we should also praise our differences – we aren’t quite the same as they are. Even though evolution is true, it does not mean that we are purposeless animals meant to live and die. We can divine meaning ourselves, and indeed we do.
If a God exists, it is these differences, these distinctions, that we should value most. He/she would desire that we use the traits that naturally distinguish us for the better. No God worth our worship would have us take such substantial claims made today regarding metaphysics on ‘faith.’ Nor would such a God desire that we find our authoritative source of morality to be any singular book, especially one full of so much wickedness. Religious folk like to view life as a test; if there is a God perhaps life is indeed a test, and in order to pass it you weren’t supposed to believe in God because there was insufficient evidence for his/her existence and no evidence whatsoever for his/her attributes.
In an article dated April 9, 2010, USA today reported that Old Testament scholar Bruce Waltke was asked to resign from the evangelical institution, Reformed Theological Seminary (RTS). The event that caused the resignation was a video released by the BioLogos foundation (a groups that “promotes and celebrates the integration of science and Christian faith”) in which Dr. Waltke stated the following:
“If the data is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution, to deny that reality will make us a cult … some odd group that is not really interacting with the world. And rightly so, because we are not using our gifts and trusting God’s Providence that brought us to this point of our awareness” Continue reading…
