If I Were an Atheist

Credulity and wishful thinking are allies. They work together in beguiling even intelligent people into believing in a god. (Or should have I used a capital G? �So many versions of God and everyone claiming their own as the One True God). The gods that have been esteemed as being the answer to life�s challenges are as varied as the people who esteem them and as elusive as the arguments given to support them. And yet humans cherish the comfort of unseen mysticism and would rather have a blind faith than face reality as it really is. Wishful thinking gives a motive for credulity, while credulity gives a way for faith despite the evidence. But as a free-thinker, I believe we should follow the evidence where it takes us rather than guide, push, and force the evidence to support our fantasies. Let us be honest about the world. Let us look with a careful mind and perhaps we shall find real glories in the world, glories we missed while our eyes were closed talking to our "god". As I have surveyed the books and literature from both believers and skeptics, it has become clear that though belief in a god may bring comfort, the comfort comes at a cost - rational belief, and in the end, the truth. Basically, there are no good reasons to support the existence of any god, and also there are many logical and philosophical problems with believing in god.

Let us first consider the evidence for God. (I�ll use the capital G now out of respect for theists, for theism is the particular God that I wish to address, a god most popular in the West) Theologians have tried for centuries to come up with a proof for God or even just a rationally justifiable reason to believe in God. But no one has yet to come up with anything persuasive. In mathematics and science we find new proofs or evidences for beliefs that persuade even the staunchest skeptics. And yet with God, we find that even believers complain how hidden and "unknownable" their God is. For them faith is the answer to lack of evidence, but for someone interested in the truth and not just "choosing" to believe what she wants, a positive claim to knowledge requires evidence to be rationally believed. So what evidence is there?

Now while experienced theologians tend to admit the unknowable-ness of God (remember Karl Barth?), people will still get very excited about this or that proof that God exists, and so I�d like to address the most popular and long-lasting of these arguments for God.

Probably the most famous one, penned by many great philosophers, such as Aristotle, Aquinas, Scofield, Kalam, Geisler, (wow, lots of names come to mind) is the cosmological argument, which in its various forms tries to show that there exists a first uncaused cause of the universe. A popular rendering of the argument is known as the Kalam version and goes like this:

1. whatever begins to exist requires a cause
2. the universe began to exist
3. therefore the universe has a cause, which we call God

Now there are a number of fatal problems with this argument. Perhaps the most telling is that even if the argument were valid and sound (which it isn�t) the conclusion that the cause is God is a non sequitur. For it doesn�t follow that the cause would have to be the Judeo-Christian God or any other god. It could have been an explosion or a group of entities or even a malevolent being as atheist philosopher Quentin Smith reminds us.

But what�s worse is that both of the premises are dubious and questioned even by some theists. For instance, the advance of quantum mechanics reveals that uncaused events can occur. The spontaneous emergence of virtual particles is a notable counter-example to (1). In addition, even without evidence for uncaused events, the burden of proof rests on the one claiming all events must be caused. I read of a survey of a class of undergraduates in philosophy who were asked if they thought all events must be caused. As many as 50% didn�t think so and those who did consisted largely of believers. Of course truth isn�t determined by polls, but it�s evident that (1) isn�t so obviously true as believers like to think. So without further evidence for (1) as well as a response to the counter-examples, we are not rationally justified in accepting (1) as evidence for God. In addition, (2) is misleading since the universe did not begin to exist in the sense that is normally understood by (1). Normally, we think of something as beginning to exist if there is a previous moment in which it did not exist. But there wasn�t any time before the universe since the first moment of the universe marks the first moment of time itself. It�s far from clear why something that begins in this sense would need a cause. But even more troubling is that it�s far from clear that the universe began to exist in any sense. Even if science is successful in positing a first moment of energy and atoms, it is not successful (nor could it be) in proving that this universe did not emerge from preceding universes indefinitely. So both premises are unjustified and the conclusion unwarranted. Even with so many philosophers busily trying to get the cosmological argument to work for so many years, it still fails miserable, which is evidenced by how few are persuaded by it.

Another classic argument is the argument from design. Although virtually all scientists and even many believers in God accept evolution as a valid account for life, there is a more sophisticated argument for God based on the recent anthropic principle. Basically, physicists have measured that many parts of the universe must be "just right" for life to exist. Therefore, people, conclude, there you go, God exists. Unfortunately, the logical problems with this reasoning are legion. First of all, observing that the universe is fit for my existence should not be surprising at all since if the universe weren�t fit I wouldn�t be alive to observe any different. If the improbable happened, that doesn�t mean God was necessary to make it happened. It just happened. Also, it�s not even clear that anything improbable happened. Developments in cosmology (and even philosophy, lookup David Lewis�s theory of possible worlds) suggest that an incalculable number of other universes exist, making it hardly improbable that one of them would be fit for life. Or perhaps a fit universe is a metaphysical necessity without need of explanation. There are just so many viable explanations other than positing an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent God, let alone any other god. There are of course a million other "design" arguments, but all fail for the same reason of not being able to eliminate plausible alternative explanations. Similar to the cosmological argument, the argument from design is badly flawed and makes one suspicious of those who continue to tout it.

Theist philosopher Imanual Kant studied the arguments in depth and concluded after a little help from David Hume that all the arguments based on causation or analogy of design fail to prove God. But he still rested his belief in God on moral and practical reasons. Now there�s no way I could explore all the tangles involved in these lesser more varied reasons, but I want to at least make some comments on the argument for God based on morals. The general form goes like this:

1. I get outraged at evil
2. Therefore moral principles exist
3. The best explanation of moral principles is God
4. Therefore, God exists

This argument is simply invalid. First of all, it�s clear from studying different cultures that moral principles are as varied as the cultures who come up with them. Now of course there are some principles, such as "don�t murder", that are generally found in all cultures. But, this hardly implies that moral principles exists. As members of the same species it�s expected that some of our instincts would be common among all of us, especially if they serve to help our survival. Remember survival of the fittest? So (2) simply doesn�t follow from (1). Also, (3) doesn�t necessarily follow from (2). The existence of moral principles may be basic or underived like mathematics, or morals may be reducible to a function of our human nature. It�s hardly surprising that popular apologists, such as C.S. Lewis and Ravis Zacharias simply assume (2) must imply (3) without offering any reason to support their assumption. But careful thinkers will find such an assumption unwarranted. Therefore without any reason to think only God can account for morals, arguments based on morality should be distrusted.

Oh yeah, and then there�s that pesky ontological argument which claims that a perfect being must exist since to lack existence would be to lack perfection. I think it was philosopher Anslem who got that started. Anyway, virtually all theologians reject that argument as an utter failure maybe because Kant pointed out that "existence is not a predicate" or maybe because it really does sound ridiculous. But sometimes it still comes up by someone who thinks they have a "new insight" into it. I�ll just say that if even believers, who grasp for anything to support their beliefs, distrust this argument then I think it�s safe to agree with our intuition about its failure.

Now of course there are countless other attempts, but all follow the same basic form and fail for the same basic reason. All notice something hard to explain about the universe and then claim, "therefore God must be the explanation". The cosmological argument wants God to explain existence, the design argument wants God to explain life, the moral argument wants God to explain morality, and so on. All these arguments commit the fallacy of a non sequitur. They conclude with God when other viable explanations are possible. Also, their failure to persuade skeptics, their reliance on questionable premises, and their countless revisions makes one increasingly suspicious of the motives behind those who give them credence.

So then without any evidence for God, how is one to be rational and still believe? Zealous believers are often quick to respond with another question, "How can you be sure that God doesn�t exist without being omniscient?" And to that I say, easily, the same way I can be sure square-circles, Santa Clause, and unicorns don�t exist. These are all either incoherent or else at odds with the facts we know about the world. Similarly, a serious, honest analysis of theism reveals that God is both incoherent as well as inconsistent with what we know about the world. I could not go into full detail about all the problems without writing a novel, but it�s sufficed to highlight a few examples.

I�ll start with giving examples for the incoherence of God. Essentially God cannot have all the attributes theists claim. I�ll just list some examples:

If God knows the future with infallible certainty, he cannot change it-- in which case he is not omnipotent. If God can change the future, however, he cannot have infallible knowledge of it before its actual occurrence-- in which case he cannot be omniscient.

If omniscience entails all possible knowledge, then it entails all procedural knowledge; however, there are many forms of procedural knowledge which are obviously incompatible with omnibenevolence, such as the procedural knowledge of inflicting gratuitous pain or murdering children (un-benevolent acts)

Can an omniscient being know what it is like to have limited knowledge? If he can, then there is a limit to his knowledge, and if he can't there is still a limit to his knowledge

Other inconsistencies require more detailed explanation, but include the problem of how an utterly changeless being could create anything of even feel emotions, how an omniscient being could allow for freewill, and many others.

George Smith, in his book, The Case against God, summarizes the fatal wound these contradictions bring to theism:

"Where does this leave the Christian? It leaves him believing in the existence of some unknowable being that cannot be coherently described. In other words, the Christian. . . is defending the rationally indefensible; he cannot even specify what it is that he believes in. Or, in more blunt terms, when he asserts that 'God exists,' simply does not know what he is talking about. And neither does anyone else".

In addition to the incoherence of the very idea of God, there is a glaring inconsistency with God and what we find in the world. Now to march past strawmen, I acknowledge that free-will can account for many grievances we find "under the sun". Other evils could be used to improve moral character in people, and still others might have some unknown greater good in the long run. This all seems possible, albeit dimly. But there are so many heart-wrenching facts about the world that have no plausible greater good. Before looking at these, I should state the general argument more formally:

This argument lives or dies depending on the truth of premise (5). So let me illustrate why it�s plausible to think there are gratuitous evils by pointing out a few examples.

Consider the evil of suffering in animals. Richard Dawkins describes the problem well:

What could be the purpose of this evil experienced by animals? Perhaps animals are being punished for Adam and Eve�s sin. People have actually suggested this to me! Two major problems are that only those who are guilty should be punished and that fossils show animals existed for millions of years before the first humans. Perhaps then animals suffer to positively affect the character of humans. Well, this might satisfy the purpose of some animal suffering. But what about the suffering of animals in remote islands that have no contact with humans? What good does the suffering of these animals bring about which an omnipotent God couldn�t have brought about another way? Without any plausible explanations for animal suffering, it�s reasonable to conclude animal suffering is an unnecessary evil in our world.

The amount of unbelief in the world is also without plausible explanation if God exists. If God is good, then surely believing in God is good. And yet so many are not privileged to enjoy this good for reasons beyond their control. Consider someone who was raised in a primitive superstitious (but nontheistic) tribe only to die a young age without belief in God. Surely there is more God could do to make Himself known. Rather, we find that when we investigate the world around us (science), we find evidence after evidence that shed doubt on God�s existence. Professional scientists are over twice as likely to disbelieve in God than non-scientists are. So if God wants people to believe in Him, why not be a little more obvious. Surely he could be! That is, if He existed. But as it is, widespread unbelief and the wide disparity between those who do believe is far more likely in a world without God.

Then there�s the problem of infant mortality. If babies go straight to heaven, then it�s a wonder that God doesn�t just start us all in heaven without any chance of condemning ourselves on earth. And if babies don�t go to heaven, well�

The deception of so many faulty religions is also without plausible explanation if God exists. Every religion (except for liberal and evasive alternatives) is based on errors and lies, including Biblical Christianity. Take for example "Saint" Mathew�s mistake of confusing Jeremiah with Zechariah, �Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: �They took the thirty silver coins, the price set on him by the people of Israel and they used them to buy the potter's field, as the Lord commanded me�" (Matt 27:9). Jeremiah never made a prophesy like that. I could list contradiction after contradiction in every "holy" book. What good does all this confusion accomplish except further the extent of unbelief?

There are many more examples of evils that have no plausible explanation if God exists. And so the conclusion is rationally justified: God doesn�t exist. I should point out that I�m not relying on the weaker argument that since we don�t know why God would allow certain evils, therefore God can�t exist. For I understand that there might be some good reason that we can�t now conceive. Rather, my argument is based not on what we don�t know, but on what we do know, namely that if there is plausibly no explanations for certain evils then therefore, God plausibly does not exist. This is a rational move just as it�s rational to deny the existence of an artist in an apartment that has only been observed to contain sports equipment. Sure there might be some unknown explanation for why the artist has only sports equipment in his apartment, but without knowing what that explanation could be, we are rational in denying the existence of an artist in that apartment based on the plausibility that no other explanation exists. Similarly, without knowing what could possibly explain particular evils, we are rational in denying the existence of God based on the plausibility that no other explanation exists.

There you have it. An honest and reasoned view of the world does not lead towards belief in God, but rather leads poignantly away from God. I�m sure this explains why there is a direct relation between the percentage of people who are atheists and their education level. The more you learn, the more likely you will question your god. It�s my hope that believers will find the courage to give up their credulity and wishful thinking and find the intellectual freedom to come out behind their god and discover reality as it truly is.