A hobby of mine is browsing the internet for arguments against atheism. As an atheist myself I like to know what theists are up to.
I came across an article by Alan Roebuck that I found particularly interesting. My interpretation of his argument is that since atheists are not willing to believe in god(s) then the existence of god(s) can never be proven to them. In other words, if you don’t already believe in god(s) then there’s no way your mind will ever be open enough for me to prove it to you.
I especially liked this quote: Just as it would be foolish for the blind man to conclude that color does not exist simply because he is unable to detect it with his senses, it is foolish for the atheist to dismiss God because he cannot detect God with his senses.
From this argument it would be just as foolish to dismiss invisible pink unicorns just because you cannot detect them with your senses either. Like God, the invisible pink unicorns are all powerful beings. This is proven by their ability to be both invisible and pink at the same time. Since we can’t detect them there is no reason not to believe that they are the ones responsible for the creation of everything.
I know of no theist who is willing to substitute “invisible pink unicorns” or “Flying Spaghetti Monster” for “God” in their arguments and continue to defend them. (I strongly suspect that Mr. Roebuck would not be willing to do so.) If there is a theist out there who meets this criteria please come forward. I would love to meet you as you are a rare breed indeed.
Morality Argument
There is another section of the article I found interesting. At this point Mr. Roebuck is discussing morality as the basis of a logical system. His argument is thus:
Naturalists, for example, generally assert that morality is made up by the group. But if morality is whatever the group says it is, then nobody has the right to say that the group is wrong, and so reformers such as those who fought against slavery are always wrong: If our ancestors said that slavery was acceptable, then it was acceptable. This sort of naturalism is thus morally contradictory, at least over time.
As someone arguing specifically for the Christian version of God, Mr. Roebuck needs to check his references. The Bible has numerous passages condoning slavery and also has details on how slaves are bought and sold and how they should be treated. Examples include: Exodus 21:7-11, Leviticus 25:44-46, Exodus 21:2-6, Exodus 21:20-21, Ephesians 6:5, 1 Timothy 6:1-2, Luke 12:47-48.
Therefore, according to the argument that morality by the group is wrong, then it would seem that today’s current group argument that slavery is wrong is the wrong side of the argument. The theological argument is that God (the Judeo-Christian version anyway) approves of slavery and expects people to partake in the buying and selling of slaves. Is this the argument Mr. Roebuck is making here? Since I can’t read his mind I don’t know for certain. However I highly doubt he would be in support of the reinstitution of slavery.
This hard-line “no one has the right to say the group is wrong” argument is an interesting one. What happens in reality is that a few people believe the group is wrong. Then they talk to others in the group to either confirm or deny if their belief makes sense. If the view is supported then over time more and more people in the group come to the conclusion that the group is wrong. At some point a tipping point is reached and the group view changes to the new “right” view.
The fact that we’re even having this debate demonstrates that, in this group at least, individuals are allowed to say “the group is wrong”. In fact, if I’m not mistaken, this country was founded on the principle that individuals have a right to say “the group is wrong” without fear of persecution (at least not government sanctioned persecution).
Theological organizations, on the other hand, have at their core a set of beliefs that are not supposed to change over time as they have been handed down from divine spirits who are infallible. They very much have a “you have no right to say the group is wrong” credo because from their point of view it’s not the group making the rules. Maybe that’s more comforting, but in light of how we’ve changed over time it’s turned into a compelling argument for atheism as the old values (e.g. slavery is acceptable) become viewed as wrong and new values (e.g. slavery is wrong) become accepted. If your doctrine can’t change because it was divinely inspired then how are these apparent contradictions handled?
Values
Mr. Roebuck does make a decent attempt at the argument of values by saying “To the strict naturalist, your life means whatever you say it does.” But then the argument is incomplete. He only gets about halfway through the argument when he reaches his conclusion.
If so, then your life can mean X, and my life can mean non-X, and both our answers are equally valid (X could be, for example, “Always putting my desires above the desires of all others.”) But this means that both our answers are also equally invalid, in which case I have no reason to believe that my life really should mean non-X. And if there is no reason why my life should mean non-X, it will be impossible for me to keep to my professed non-X ideal: if it’s all made up, why stick to it when the going gets tough? Naturalism is unlivable. [emphasis mine]
The missing part of this argument is that the naturalist view of morality is that for each individual both answers can be equally valid. If you believe in putting your desires above the desires of others and I believe that the desires of others should be put above my own, both are equally valid. However, over time, the humans that have become prolific are those who put their needs in balance with the needs of others. That’s how we formed societies. People who only put their desires first don’t work well with others. And those who work well with others will not tolerate a free-loader for very long.
Our current system of morals can be explained by our evolution as a social animal. We’re more like wolves (who are social and often put the desires of others above their own) than foxes (who live alone and are only concerned with their own desires – at least until it comes to raising young).
The conclusion I draw from this is that our morality is instinctual because of the way we evolved. It is not something that was magically implanted by a supernatural deity.
Natural and Supernatural Causes
If we were not self-aware creatures we wouldn’t be having this discussion. We would simply be acting out our instinct. However, because we are self-aware, we have started to ask questions about why we behave the way we do. In our effort to understand ourselves we have tried to look for first causes and axioms. When we reach a cause that we don’t have an explanation for we consider that an axiom. But we don’t stop digging. Eventually axioms give way and become proved by other axioms. OR they fall by the wayside as they are disproved.
At one time it was axiomatic that Apollo rode his chariot across the sky each day and that why the sun went across the sky. Now we look at that view as quaint and no longer consider it axiomatic.
One final quote from Mr. Roebuck:
Is it true that the supernatural does not exist? We can only answer this question by judging the system of axioms of which it is a part, because intuition is not a reliable guide to that which goes beyond our senses and our ordinary experience.
He follows with what to do if an atheist claims that “the supernatural does not exist” by going into arguments about the axioms of the logical system prevented.
I claim that the supernatural does not exist. Here is my argument which is a semantic one. If something exists then it’s natural. Something that is supernatural is outside of the natural. Since something that exists must be natural there is therefore nothing outside of the natural and therefore nothing that is supernatural.
This does not mean that naturalists know everything. We don’t and we don’t claim to. In fact our claim is that we don’t know everything and we probably never will. However, our goal is to learn as much as we possibly can about what exists, to try to understand what exists, to be able to explain to others our understanding, and to perform predictions based on all this information.
As part of this, if the explanation we find does not include a supernatural being, then we exclude it from the explanation. Yes, the universe sprang up from nothing as far as we know. But to postulate that some creator created it without then explaining who created the creator is preposterous. Saying “the creator created himself” (out of nothing?) is just removing the creation one step back from “the universe created itself out of nothing.”
What happens with naturalism is that as we find new things about nature they are incorporated into the natural. If ghosts, demons, angels, gods, or invisible pink unicorns are found to exist then they will no longer be “supernatural”. They’ll be part of the natural.
What Exists?
There is a very big difference between whether something could exist and whether it does exist. Could black swans exist? Certainly. Do they exist? Until just a few hundred years ago the answer was thought to be “no”. But now we know that black swans do exist. I’ve seen the black swan argument used as part of older proofs that god(s) exist. They’re weak arguments and no theist uses them any more.
A stronger parallel would be whether invisible pink unicorns exist or not. If we define these beings to have supernatural powers (like being able to be both pink and invisible at the same time) similar to those of other god definitions then the arguments for and against their existence becomes similar.
I have never seen or otherwise experienced an invisible pink unicorn. I do not believe they exist. There is no evidence for their existence. It is certainly possible that they could exist somewhere maybe. I can certainly imagine a planet full of invisible pink unicorns. But just because one can imagine something does not mean that it must exist.
Is there a most intelligent creature in the universe? Certainly. Are we humans it? Possibly or possibly not. At the moment we’re the most intelligent creatures that we know of. But is god some supernatural entity living outside of and part of the universe at the same time that has a personal interest in our lives in our tiny spec of dust in the overall universe? Do you have personal interest in the billions of bacteria living on the tips of your fingers?
Opinion
I don’t believe that god exists anymore than I believe that invisible pink unicorns, ghosts, Santa Claus, or the Tooth Fairy exist. I also know that this puts bias in my previous arguments. But so be it. If there is bias then my hope is that someone will point it out and that I can revise my arguments as a result. On the other hand, my hope is also that whoever does point out where my bias has gotten in the way of a logical argument will not assume that they don’t come into the argument with their own bias.
People believe any number of things that other people consider strange. Many people believe in ghosts, alien abductions, communication with dead people, psychic powers, astral travel, talking trees… the list goes on and on. Why are those beliefs considered normal or strange when other similar beliefs are considered just the opposite? If you believe that an invisible spirit can read your thoughts, but don’t believe that humans can be given the same power, why is that? If you believe that trees can talk but don’t believe that ghosts roam the earth, why?
As an atheist and a naturalist, I like to see demonstrable and repeatable evidence that something exists. I’ve never seen the Arctic Ocean, but I believe it exists because of photographs of its existence, maps created of it, tales from explorers whose goal was to find out if it existed or not, and other reliable authoritative sources. I also have confidence that if I wanted to go there that it would be there where it’s supposed to be.
But what is the map to a god? The only maps I’ve seen are of the “just believe and then it will be revealed” type. Well I’ve seen incorrect maps of terrain before. Even maps that I should be able to trust I treat with skepticism until they’re verified against the actual terrain. I won’t even get into the “my map is the only map to (my) god” debate here.
Well this post has gotten way too long so I think I’ll stop here. In a future post I’ll be addressing the arguments made on this site.
