Religious Dogma is Absurd

The reason why the majority of people don't believe in Scientology, reincarnation, Mormonism, Greek Gods, etc. is not because they have extensively researched the historicity and veracity of the claims made by these faiths. It is because they don't believe that the types of things these faiths claim actually happen in the world. Miracles, resurrections, battles between gods, parting of seas, angels visiting earth, humans flying up to heaven, chariots carrying the sun across the sky, and the rest are things that supposedly occurred long ago in the ancient mythology of these religions. They don't happen today. Everything in our experience tells us that they probably didn't happen in antiquity, either. In other words, common sense tells us that when someone makes an absurd exaggerated claim, almost anything is more likely to be the case (i.e. they are lying, they are delusional, they are relying on misinformation, they are relating myths, or they have been fooled) than for the absurdity to be real. As Carl Sagan said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". There is nothing more extraordinary than a claim of eternal life after death, the existence of heaven and hell (and maybe purgatory depending on your particular branch of Christianity), angels, demons, an all-powerful god with an unusually strong interest in a certain species of primate (us), who has a special relationship with a small bronze age Semitic tribe, and a particular preacher from that tribe, etc.

Those claims are far more wild and outlandish than the more mundane claims we sometimes hear of perpetual motion, anti-gravity, time-travel, transmutation, bigfoot, telekinesis, ESP, UFOs, or extra terrestrial life. For any of those we would (and should) require an incredible amount amount of highly reliable, repeatable, clear, unambigous, and demonstrable evidence. We would be naive and gullible to accept them without hard proof. Even more so for the far more extravagent claims that most religions make.

The Bible isn't proof. A book cannot be the evidence of its own veracity. That requires outside corroboration. Christians are so committed to the habit of quoting passages from the Bible to make a point - these are called "proof texts" - that they either forget, or are unaware, that the words of a sacred text are not acceptable evidence to an unbeliever. Reading passages from Moby Dick is not proof that an enormous white whale exists.

Even if the greatest scientists in the world all gave testimonials, endorsements, and signed affidavits to the truth of some amazing scientific claim, we would still need to produce the phenomenon in a controlled environment before we should begin to believe it ourselves. If Louis Pasteur announced that he could cure smallpox, had written a scholarly article about it, got all of his associates to vouch for him, but refused to show us that he could do it, no one would have believed him. Likewise, no one would or should believe that a person has ESP or Telekinesis, or that belief in a certain scripture will make you live forever, in the absence of an immense volume of high quality, reliable, repeatable evidence.

Christianity makes hard and definite claims about how events in the real world happen - it is not only about praying, singing hymns, listening to sermons, bingo, and bake-sales. It lays out in precise detail what a "soul" is, what happens to that soul after you die, what happens to your physical body on judgement day, how the world came into existence, how life forms emerged, the age of the earth, how the first man and woman came into existence, the formation of the earth, the sun, and the stars, and the origin of morality. It contains descriptions of a large variety of different miracles. It describes exact rules of human relations, like endorsing slavery, subjugating women, exterminating enemy tribes, and outlawing homosexuality - but over time it has softened opinions on some of those.

But, the only evidence for Christianity are anecdotes, personal testimonies, mind-bending logical discourses, rationalizations, and a 2000 year old book, itself a hodgepodge of chapters by different writers (none of whom actually knew or ever saw Jesus) long after the main events supposedly occurred, and a billion or so believers. The only physical evidence is the one book. Without that book, there would be absolutely nothing backing it up other than legend. It is possible or even likely that a person named Jesus did exist (as described by Josephus and Tacitus), but they don't mention any miracles or resurrections - just his execution and the religion that was springing up in his name. I wouldn't accept a claim of transmutation, cold fusion, ESP, levitation, or any other extravagant phenomenon just because it was written down in a document, nor should we accept the even wilder claims made by Christianity.

The claims made by religion, and Christianity in particular, are indeed extraordinary, even though we have grown used to them, having heard them all our lives. The standard of evidence - the rule of evidence - should be proportionally higher, as it should be for any other extreme claim.

The Problem of Evil - Theodicy

“Epicurus's old questions are still unanswered: Is he (God) willing to prevent evil, but not able? then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? then whence evil?”
    ― David Hume

The so called "good" god allows horrible things to happen on earth - exactly the same kind of horrible things that would happen if he didn't exist at all. I see a few options:

• He doesn't exist
• He is powerless to fix things
• He doesn't care
• He is so perverted that he thinks evil is a good thing
• Somehow he thinks evil has a good side (likes it teaches us compassion or some other incomprehensible good results from it).
• He is actually punishing people who he thinks deserve it

Christians jump through amazingly complex hoops to explain it all away. They generate every type of ad hoc reason to show why it is perfectly normal for god to allow these things - ad hoc in the sense that the reasons given are designed specifically to address the obvious and glaring moral inconsistencies, but able to explain nothing else. It is really not the kind of behavior or outcome any sane person would expect from a super-being of god's stature. One of the explanations is that "god works in mysterious ways". How can that be offered up as an excuse, immediately to be followed by attributing good outcomes from disease, misfortune, and other of life's problems to a well-intentioned and benevolent god? When something good happens, the apologist is ready to attribute it to god's good intentions, but when something bad happens they are ready with "god works in mysterious ways". You can't have it both ways. You either know how god thinks and why he does things, or you don't. Either he is mysterious and we can't figure out why he does what he does, or he is a good guy who deals with our problems the way we would hope a god would do. Christians want to have it both ways - he is both a complete mystery and simultaneously, a giver of easy-to-understand treats and bonuses.

Obviously the first four choices, above, would be unacceptable to most Christians. They generally split between the last two choice - what we perceive as evil is just us not seeing the big picture, or evil is a result of people abandoning god and separating themselves from him. Evil is not caused by god, but is a separation from god. That's quite a stretch.

Regarding the question of god allowing evil in the form of natural disasters so that humans will have the opportunity to learn compassion, here is a hypothetical situation that illustrates just how bizarre that is. Assume that we discover that some form of natural disaster, for example tornadoes, are not natural at all, but are being caused by an evil super-villain in a hidden fortress who is manipulating the weather, shooting mysterious rays into the atmosphere which cause the tornadoes. We catch him. He confesses to it, but says his motives were good - the tornadoes help communities come together and allow individuals to help their fellow man and practice compassion and generosity. We would consider him a dangerous psychotic and would lock him up and throw away the keys. But when the apologist says that this is god's motive, we are expected to accept that as a legitimate explanation.

From another perspective, consider typhoons and hurricanes. I am sure if you asked one of the selfless members of Doctors Without Borders whether they are happy that they have a chance to practice compassion on the victims of these disasters, they would each gladly trade that opportunity for self-improvement for the hurricane never having happened. They certainly would not consider the limited good that comes from their actions after a hurricane to be at all worth the horrible suffering caused by it.

Atheists ask why an all-powerful god cannot just create a perfect world without suffering and evil. The common Christian response is that god wants us to use our free will, and that suffering results from our misuse of that free will - of humans making evil choices. Well, it certainly is possible for god to eliminate evil and bring a perfect world into being - he did just that when he created heaven (according to Christian mythology). This perfect world (heaven) is full of angels who can think for themselves. They aren't robots - several of them make cameo appearances at various points in the bible, and they appear to be pretty rational creatures. One would assume that Angels have free will. From biblical writing they don't appear to be mindless automatons. Certainly Satan/Lucifer had the free will to leave god's side. Gabriel and Michael seem to think pretty fast on their feet and make choices and decisions without having to check in with god every five minutes. So, clearly (according to Christian dogma), it is possible for god to create a world without suffering in which the inhabitants also have free will. With us, for some inscrutable reason, he decided to create a realm of suffering here on earth. I'm sure there is a Christian rebuttal for that, but it's clear enough to me that they struggle when it comes to responding to the problem of evil with anything other than an embarrassing and shameful set of excuses.

Short response to Christian evangelizers

Debating religion rarely change anyone's mind. Occasionally one side or the other may learn something new, and it is possible that over time, one's point of view may gradually shift through exposure and maturation of ideas as they are mulled over. But usually, theists and atheists don't share enough of a common ground to even have a useful conversation.

I am unconvinced by any claims that anyone has ever made about the existence of a divine force operating in the universe. I don't accept the basic premise that the bible is a historic document. I don't see indication that this book is anything other than a work of fiction and fables, mixed with bits of real history, based on 2000 year old Middle Eastern mythologies. The bible is a collection of propaganda pieces (hagiographies of old testament patriarchs and the new testament savior) aimed at promoting the religion, not an objective history. Basically, it is "sales literature" which attempts to convince its readers of something that is otherwise not believable.

I don't accept that the miracles described in the bible ever happened or happen now, that people rise from the dead, that they ascend into heaven or descend into hell, that a god and/or angels are watching us, that supernatural causes exist, that proper rules for human conduct come from a god, that the body is inhabited by a "soul", or that consciousness is anything more than an emergent process generated by the brain/mind/body. I don't accept a source of knowledge based on apocryphal writings by mostly anonymous authors or what you perceive to be a god talking to you. Nor do I consider a warm feeling in your soul caused by possession by the holy spirit to be a proper epistemological source. I don't buy into the convoluted logic that Christian academics use to "prove" that a god created the universe, or created the laws of nature. These arguments literally date from medieval times, and have barely been updated as the discipline of Metaphysics has matured (through Kant, Hume, Russell, Carnap, Ladyman, and others). They are just scholastic sophistry clothed in the vernacular of logic, intended to overwhelm the audience with intellectual-sounding double-speak and complex jargon, but loaded with unclear and ambiguous premises and antique conceptions of how the universe works.

The historical abuse of reason and contempt for evidence shown by past Christian philosophers convinces me that your warped use of logic is just another tool to win converts to a belief in what is ultimately a fairy tale. Anselm's and Descartes' ontological arguments, Paley's designed universe, Aquinas's five proofs of god, and countless others have been thoroughly refuted, or at least shown to be incoherent, as far as I am concerned.

I base what I know on what I see happening in the real world. I don't require a deductive proof of my worldview or of yours, and frankly, I don't think such proofs are even possible. I am an empiricist, and I move through the world as do all living creatures, following the evidence of my senses, relying on instinct, and using what intellect and emotion I can bring to bear. In nature, animals hunt where the game goes, the hunted hide where they can't be found, plants turn their leaves to the sun and send their roots towards the water. Humans, like all of living creatures, are part of nature. We all follow the basic life functions of seeking what sustains us and avoiding what does not. We use our talents, our gifts, and our strengths to make our lives. Instead of teeth and claws, we have big brains and civilization.

In spite of centuries of systematic and rigorous searching, no uncontroversial evidence for a god or gods has been found. The lack of existence of a god or gods has been confirmed to such a high degree that it would be perverse and stubbornly contrary to continue to deny it. Everywhere we look, there is no god, and no need for a god to explain what we see. The evidence for god is of the same low quality as that for the Loch Ness Monster, Chupacabra, and cold fusion - a few people claim to have seen these, but when asked to produce them, they are unable to. If there were good evidence, there would be no need for faith. And where faith is needed, it is principally due to a lack of good evidence.

I can see no compelling or persuasive reason to believe the fantasy put forward by religions. Given the alternative explanations for my experiences in the world, inference to the best explanation, and all available evidence supporting that inference, leads me to conclude that we live in a naturalistic universe that does not include supernatural beings controlling events behind the scenes. Until evidence to the contrary is produced, and only if the overwhelming evidence in favor of naturalism is overturned, I will continue to disbelieve in supernatural causes like gods. Produce a god for me, and you will get my attention.

No reasonable person today should believe 2nd / 3rd / 4th handed testimony coming from a lone part of the ancient world as we find in ancient manuscripts written by pre-scientific biased and superstitious people who doctored up and forged many of these texts, who cared more about swaying public opinion and promoting their new religion than accurately representing history. If I were asked to commit to "Yes" or "No" on the god question, to take a stand, without hestitation I say "No". I don't need to be saved, because I'm not lost. I am doing very well without a religion.

I agree with David Hume who wrote:

If we take in our hand any volume ... of divinity or ...metaphysics ... let us ask, "Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number?" No. "Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence?" No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.

Getting Started

I just finished my "Conceptions of God" blog, and quite a while ago finished my "Scientific faith vs Religious faith" blog. I was inspired to begin a 3rd one. I frequently feel inundated by Christian propaganda whose goal is to convince me that the Christian worldview, of all the many worldviews and thousands of god-based mythologies, is the one true way of seeing reality. As in "Conceptions of God", I decided to compile a list of problems with that proposition.

There are web sites and books that go into excruciating detail in the subtle and complicated arguments for and against Christianity. Debaters on both sides are highly educated, extremely well-read, have encyclopedic recall of thousands of relevant facts and arguments. Within minutes, the discussions and references to arcane logical constructs and religious jargon become overwhelming and incomprehensible. This blog will specifically attempt NOT to overwhelm, but to present the layman's response to Christian evangelical proselytizing. It will give you just enough to understand why it makes sense to reject Christianity.

Ignoring, scorning, belittling, or ridiculing religious arguments do not constitute a rebuttal! Although the best policy may be to simply ignore the persistent Christian and hope they eventually go away, I am motivated to organize a response. This blog is that response.