Why I have stopped participating in religous blog discussions

To those of you who have been used in the past to my comments on various blogs for which religious belief is at the heart, I have decided that it serves so little purpose as to be a waste of time.  Most of the mainstream blogs are close knit communities of likeminded belevers, who use these blogs to reassure themselves of their faith.  They usually only welcome 'civilised' non-believers as guests in order to reinforce their own sense of belonging - It's harder to remain cohesive unless there are 'outsiders' to fend off. 

Too many times when atheists have commented and produced strong arguments against what they see as illogical or unsustainable views, the faithful band together and become ever more illogical and fervent in defending the undefendable.

However, my participation has resulted in some helpful  (to me) outcomes;

• I am even better informed about religious belief in general, and the various forms of Christianity in particular.
• I think I have a clearer understanding of what it is that makes many people more prone to belief in supernatural cause/influence/purpose
• I have gained a greater understanding and acceptance of what it is to be a Humanist
• I am convinced that there is no higher purpose to life.  This is all there is. And it no longer troubles me

"...A God who is but a reflection of human frailty"

An interesting quote I came across, attributed to Albert Einstein, in a column for the New York Times Nov 9, 1930:: “I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own—a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty.”

I've always found the worship of God a strange thing to do.  I did not choose to be created, and I have only very limited control over my destiny.  Why would God expect my praise for His creation? Why would he want it?

Mike Behe and Michael Reiss debate ID

This link is to the audio recording on Premier Christian Radio. I was curious to know if Mike Behe would say anything new on his recent UK tour. 
In this respect I found the debate beyween Mike Behe and Michael Reiss in Scotland this week particularly enlightening.  I have to say that after hearing it I was even less impressed by the argument for I.D. than I was beforehand.  Ironically this was in large part because he was debating not with a secularist, but with a very sincere Christian.  Thus the 'well he would say that wouldn't he' type defence would not work. 

In fact Michael Reiss makes a very good case for there being no need to even go down the I.D. road, for belief in God as the creator does not require this kind of limited view.  To me the whole I.D. idea seems to be counter-productive - particularly as many 'prrofs' have been proven over and over to be fundamentally flawed.  Conversely the supposed arguments against Evolution can so easily be refuted.

I do hope for the future health of the Christian religion that this gimmicky I.D. idea gets consigned to history sooner rather than later.  It's a silly notion that may sell books and make some people feel good about themselves, but ultimately just takes many gullible people down a dead end.

Ok, so God did it - but which God?

So often one seems to come across debates between a non believer on one side, and a believer in the dominant God of that particular culture, on the other side.  The alternatives frequently appear to be 'No God' or 'This God'.

But isn't that missing out a vital step?  If I'm to believe that the the natural Universe was indeed created by a deity, how can I be sure that it was, for example, the Christian deity rather than the God of a number of other competing religions?

To be honest, the fact that there are many so many people who equally fervently believe that 'their' God is the true God, leaves me wondering how many people of the hghest integrity must, by definition, be utterly deluded.  Pity those poor wretches who may devote their whole life to their chosen religion, and maybe even die for it, when their belief is nothing but a delusion.


How can one tell who is deluded?  There are no proofs or logical explanations for any of these competing deities, and much of the 'evidence' would not last 5 minutes if subjected to impartial scientific scrutiny...

I remain perplexed by people's wholly illogical behaviour.

Catholics and Natural Law

What is "Natural Law"?  Look it up in Wikipedia and you would be forgiven for believing that it can mean almost whatever the user wants it to mean. 

Catholics appear to define natural law as the rule of conduct which is prescribed to mankind by the Creator in the constitution of the nature with which He has endowed mankind.  Recently I've come across the expression several times in discussion with Catholics, who declare it as a kind of self-evident trump card.  As in "homosexuality is wrong - It's against natural law".  When looking natural law up at a website calling itself "Catholic Encyclopedia" I was surprised to be given as an example of natural law that in certain circumstances Polygamy can be lawful but that polyandry can never be lawful, presumably because of something written by a misogynist in the Old Testament.

I find myself wondering how laws which to a modern reader often appear bizarre, and are prescribed by a supernatural being, can possibly warrant the title of "natural".  Moreover, not even Catholic scholars through the ages can agree on the detail. Is it perhaps time to drop this rather unhelpful expression?

Old Arguments in New Clothes

I have been reading a long philosophical article by Professor Ernan McMullin, titled catchily: "Cosmic Purpose and the Contingency of Human Evolution".   Over 37 closely argued pages he expounds his thesis, and backs it up with 11 pages of references.  It is basically an examination of the argument for and against God as the creator.

His conclusion?  If you strip away all the esoteric language he basically says:  "I cannot prove whether God exists, but I assume that he does, and I present here my admittedly unproveable reasons for thinking this.  Some people think that they can prove he does not exist, but they are wrong, and here's why."

In other words we cannot prove either that God exists, or that he does not. 
Haven't we heard that before?  Oh, no more than many thousand times... 
Crikey!  Does this man get paid to do this?

Our genome is an unmitigated mess

Interesting book review in New Scientist of which the following is an extract. Read this and tell me you still believe in an omnipotent creator...

Lesch-Nyhan syndrome causes compulsive self-mutilation. Children eat their lips or fingers, and stab their faces with sharp objects. They feel the pain, but they cannot stop themselves. Why would a loving, all-powerful creator allow anyone to be born with such an awful disease?

Lesch-Nyhan is just one of the tens of thousands of genetic disorders discovered so far. At least a tenth of people have some kind of debilitating genetic disease, and most of us will become sick at some point during our lifetime as a result of mutations that cause diseases such as cancer.

The reason? Our genome is an unmitigated mess. The replication and repair mechanisms are inadequate, making mutations commonplace. The genome is infested with parasitic DNA that often wreaks havoc. The convoluted control mechanisms are prone to error. The huge amount of junk, not just between genes but within them, wastes resources. And some crucial bits of DNA are kept in the power factories - mitochondria - where they are exposed to mutagenic byproducts. "It is downright ludicrous!" declares John Avise, an evolutionary geneticist at the University of California, Irvine.

The human genome, Avise concludes, offers no shred of comfort for those seeking evidence of a loving, all-powerful creator who had a direct hand in designing us, as not just creationists but many believers who accept evolution think was the case. If some entity did meddle with life on Earth, it either did not know what it was doing or did not care, or both.

Does God exist - 2 - The Cosmological Argument

Why does anything exist? - why something rather than nothing? The argument is that unless God exists, the question is unanswerable. If the Universe had a beginning, who created the Universe if not God? Human experience informs us that something can't come out of nothing. What we need, it seems, is a cause which itself has no cause; and God fits the bill.

Claims and counterclaims have been made since the idea was first postulated. Bertrand Russell said something simple but profound:

"...the Universe is just there, and that's all".

Why cannot the Universe be infinite, regardless of whether we can comprehend that. We are after all just short lived carbon life forms living precariously on a small planet revolving around an unremarkable star.

We seem to be tantalisingly close to a scientific explanation for the origin of our Universe and the apparent "Big Bang" that started it all. But let's suppose that humankind is not able to fully understand the origin of the Universe, before our brief existence (In Cosmic terms) is snuffed out by our dying Sun. The fact that we do not understand something is not sufficient cause to say "God did it".

Let's imagine that every day my cat sees me taking food from the cupboard to feed him, but is never there when I replenish the cupboard. My cat has no idea why everything always comes from that cupboard or why it is there, but he knows that it does, he knows that it always has done, and has no reason to doubt that it always will. He has no facility to understand the process. But might it not seem reasonable to him that a God lives in the cupboard, a God which always provides, and apparently from nothing? There is a perfectly logical process, but he is mentally unequipped to understand it. As far as he is concerned I am the one who acts as an intercessor (I know how to open a can and he marvels at that!), and therefore perhaps I am the equivalent to his High Priest, if you like.

At a different scale and level of complexity, doesn't the God that humans assume exists fit the same mould? OK, so this is a gross oversimplification, but surely the basic prionciple is the same.

Does God exist? - (1) The Ontological Argument

Christian apologists are fond of "proving" that God exists using logic or philosophical arguments. Are the proofs mere word games, or is there more to them? One of the oldest widely disseminated arguments is the so called "Ontological" argument. In the late 11th Century St Anselm argued that we can deduce the existence of God from the mere idea of God. Just by thinking about what God is we can deduce that He exists. St Anselm's argument was:

By definition God is greater than which none can be conceived.
God can be conceived of as just an idea, or as really existing.
It is greater to exist than not to exist.
Therefore, God must exist.

Over time various philosphers have exposed the flaws in this argument.
Initially Anselm's contemporary, the monk Gaunilo, objected that logically one could prove anything exists by this argument. St Anselm's response was that this argument could only be applied to God, because only He could be perfect and unique.

But it was not until Emmanual Kant in the late 18th Century that the Ontological argument appears to be have been conclusively rebutted. Kant showed that the argument wrongly assumes that existence is a property. According to St Anselm the concept "God" contains contains the idea of existence. So the statement "God does not exist is a contradiction in terms. Therefore he must exist. But Kant claimed that existence does not add anything to, or define, a concept. To say something exists merely means that some object corresponds to the concept. Existence is not the same as a concept. Therefore it is not true that "God exists" must be true.

However, this argument is still used today in various forms, and with further justifications and explanations.

In future posts I'll summarize further arguments. Next will be the "Cosmological Argument"

Charles Kingsley on the fossil record

I've just recalled a quote by 19th century writer Charles Kingsley, made when discussing his doubt that God made the World complete with fossils that appear to predate the Creation. He said:

"I cannot believe that God has written on the rocks one enormous and superfluous lie"

I find myself ever more perplexed by the creationist view of the World. How can they sustain their belief, when every argument they produce can so easily be refuted, and when the much simpler rational solution is so blindingly apparent? I find it scary that people can be so intent on self delusion. Of what else are they capable?
I do acknowledge, however, that most Christians do not subscribe to such a literal view.

Is human morality a result of evolution or God given?

I discovered a fascinating study at the "Trends in Cognitive Science" website. The following is an extract. The full report is at the link, including sources. Click on the title above to go to the link.
See also my earlier post: "A monopoly on moral behaviour?"

"...

For some, there is no morality without religion. For others, religion is merely one way of expressing and legitimating one's moral intuitions. Religion can be linked to morality in different ways: moral principles are either decided by gods or by ancestors, or saints and holy individuals provide a model to be followed. Alternatively, gods and ancestors are regarded as interested parties that pay attention to what people do and people thus feel that their moral choices are never merely a private matter.

It is important to distinguish explicitly held religious beliefs and affiliations from religious intuitions. Bering, for example, presents experimental evidence that even non-religious subjects intuitively consider some mental states and processes, such as emotions, more likely to continue after death than others, such as hunger. Bloom argues that all humans are intuitive dualists in the sense that we feel our self to be the owner of the body, but we are not the same as our bodies. Thus, in folk psychology, the death of the body does not mean the cessation of personhood. Furthermore, because human reasoning is characterized by a promiscuous teleology, a capacity that causes us to see meaning and intentionality in everything that happens, we automatically postulate an agent as an explanation of various events; often this is some god -like concept.

Arguably, these tendencies make religious beliefs contagious in the sense that they are easy to spread and propagate because they functionally resonate with many of the basic operations of the mind. Consequently, they are also easy to use in moral reasoning. This does not mean, however, that there is a necessary link between morality and religion. There is evidence that at least some religious concepts and beliefs need certain cultural input in order to become adopted and to persist. The Vezo of Madagascar, for instance, seem to have two conceptions of death. Guided by their everyday experience, they construe death in biological terms as the breakdown of all vital functions, but see it as the beginning of a different form of existence in a ritual context. These two conceptions of death are activated in different contexts, and thus the Vezo do not feel that there is a tension between them.

Thus, although it seems undebatable that religiously colored intuitions can affect moral reasoning, and that religious primes can affect prosocial behavior, these observations do not license the conclusion that the mechanisms are specific to religion, nor that religion provides the central explanatory factor. Even when the intuitive content is interpreted as religious, the mechanisms that support reasoning are more general in scope.

There are endless often pointless web arguments about whether religion is necessary for humans to be moral. But surely that's the wrong question. I think most of us would agree that humans have an innate sense of morality. The really important question is surely whether this is God given. I hold the belief that it is not, but I cannot prove that, any more than someone else can prove that it is.

One way Street?

I can understand how someone who believes in a God can become a non-believer, but I’m puzzled as to how a thoughtful and well informed atheist can go the other way, and “convert” to Deism. Though I note that some Christian websites take great pleasure in showcasing people who have made this leap.

As a small child I believed in all sorts of illogical things, from a jolly fellow called Father Christmas, to the Tooth Fairy who would leave money under my pillow. Gradually as I became more aware of the rational reality of the World around me these acts of faith were discarded. Along the way I learnt why parents went along with these bizarre concepts, in their sincere and thoughtful belief that it would make our childhood more wonderful and full of joy. Understandable and maybe laudable, but no way to continue to live one's life as a fulfilled adult.

Last to go, after an immense struggle to hold onto it, was my belief in the Christian God. For months - even years - before I finally admitted it, I struggled and tortured myself to hang onto my belief, but I just could not do it. Everything around me screamed that this belief could not be upheld.

When I finally accepted my new state it was probably the most wonderfully liberating moment in my entire life. To borrow from Biblical parlance, it was as if the shackles that weighed me down were cast off, and I became intoxicated by the light of reason and the loss of fear. Suddenly the World made sense, and I could experience the joy of being, without questioning everything for otherworldly meaning, without doubting my motives, or being ashamed of any ideas that did not fit into the Christian view of the World.

Since that time my journey has been one of great excitement, and I have found inner peace that I had not thought possible. It does not matter that there is no higher being, no higher purpose to life. This World is so incredibly awe inspiring that there is no need for anything else, and the Gods worshipped by the mainstream religions appear so petty and tawdry when compared to the wonderful symmetry and rationality of an evolved Universe. Yes, there are gaps in our understanding of the natural Universe, but almost every month some new part of the jigsaw is discovered that brings us closer to a fuller understanding. As short lived and physically restrained humans there will remain some things our minds are not equipped to understand, such as the unimaginable vastness of space and of time. We will most likely, however, find better ways to explain them conceptually, and that will have to suffice.

I cannot prove the non-existence of God, any more than I can prove the non-existence of fairies, but that is insufficient reason to devote my life to belief in a God. The arguments for belief are surely so self-serving and circular that I still find it incredible that so many people can suspend belief in everything they learn about our pysical nature, and instead make a blind leap into belief in Gods who are so full of contradictions and who often exhibit signs of human frailty and imperfection. For everything around us we can find a reason that does not include a God, despite the tortuous, circular arguments put forward by the apologists, which so often are the result of selective misquotation or which exhibit basic flaws in logical reasoning. And the argument that deists too readily propose that "we are too imperfect to comprehend the workings of God" is such a cop out for any action or lack of action that cannot be explained satisfactorily in terms of innate human morality.

I intend to find someone who has made this apparent leap from non-belief to belief, to try to understand the motivation, and the truth that this person has found that I have not. I feel that there may well be a fault in me that I cannot find empathy with these people, who I have to assume are still sane and rational.

I will come back to this again…

A monopoly on moral behaviour?

It suprises me how often religions tend to claim a monopoly on moral behaviour. They imply that without God given rules for behaviour, we humans would lose our moral compass, and be subject to selfish "base instincts". Well known figures of hate in the Western World, including Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot, are cited as classic examples of what happens when religion is displaced by atheism. But isn't this assertion yet another example of flawed logic? Rather like that old chestnut: My dog always has fleas. Therefore it must be true that all dogs have fleas.

I am a consciencious atheist, and yet I feel no different about these tyrants than those of a religious persuasion. Moreover, I try to live my life by a code of ethics and moral behaviour that works for me. I frely admit that my earliest exposure to morality was through Bible stories as a child. For a while I was "sold" on the idea that morality came from God, because I had no other measure by which to judge this assertion. It took a long time and much soul searching to discover not only that I could not believe in this God, but also that it was possible to lead a moral life without the external regulation of this God.

The moral codes and ethical behaviour expounded in the holy books are surely more reflections on human nature and desires. Dressing them up in religious texts just lends a false authority to the religion thus described. I do not need to be religious to believe that i should not kill my fellow humans. I do not need religion to tell me that I should not steal or lie under "normal circumstances. These are basic human instincts, which most of us find no difficulty in obeying without recourse to artificial aids.

There is often talk of a "Golden Rule", which is at the heart of a number of religions. The rule is broadly this: "Treat others as you would like them to treat you". Now what is so hard about that. It makes huge sense for humans to behave this way. I don't want to live in constant fear of my neighbour breaking into my house and stealing my belongings, and he feels the same way aboout me. This mutual desire is constantly reinforced as we gain each others trust. Over time our mutual circles of trust expand to embrace the community. Ultimately we learn that on balnce we all prosper more if we obey these basic unwritten rules, and we pass this idea onto our children. Eventually these ideas become codified and formalised, all without the aid of an external "guiding hand".

I could go on, with countless other examples, but I hope this simple example makes the point - that we don't need religion to behave morally. Arguably atheists are capable more moral behaviour than those who believe in a God, as atheists are purely driven by an internal moral compass, without the need for belief in eternal paradise or damnation.

Things are the way they are because.....

There is an argument put forward by those who believe in divine creation that there has to be an intelligent creator. In essence they argue that if parameters and physical laws which govern the Universe were not precisely as they are, when they could so easily have been different, then we would not exist. Ergo, there must be a intelligent being who created them thus.
If one is already convinced that there is a God then I guess that this argument provides a reassuring riposte to those who point to a scientific explanation.
But is it really so astounding that these paramenters are exactly as they are? Well, yes, but they are, and it is perfectly possible and logical for these conditions to exist without divine intervention. The argument is put forward that the chances of exactly the right conditions for life existing are so incredibly small that it just can't have happened without a guiding hand.
But consider this. If I buy a ticket for the UK national Lottery, the chances of my winning the jackpot are so infinitessimally small, that many people call it a "tax on stupid people", but the fact remains that almost every week one person who buys their ticket in the knowledge that winning is incredibly unlikely, wins that jackpot.
There is a fundamental difference between something being highly improbable and being impossible Our existence may be highly improbable, given the vast range of alternative values that could have existed, but it is not impossible, and it can be deduced and explained using the basic building blocks of the structure of our Universe. There is no need for God.

Mudslinging and Biased Reporting

I'd be the first to admit that some atheists go over the top in slinging mud at those who believe in supernatural origins, but I would be hard pressed to find a position argued from anything but carefully researched and balanced sources. On the other hand, judging by material on the internet, those who argue for a supernatural creator do not appear to see any wrong in manipulating facts, quoting out of context, willfully misinterpreting data, and demonising anyone who speaks out passionately for a World without Gods.
I have just been reading the entry on "Atheism" on the "Conservapedia" website. I don't think I'd be overstating it to say that this is a dismal attempt to denigrate atheists using spurious out of context references, and trying to tie all atheists in with repressive regimes. It's like saying "My dog has fleas. Therefore all dogs have fleas".
The saddest thing is that this site masquerades as an alternative to Wikipedia, and is laid out to mimic the layout as far as possible, thereby lending an impression of moderated scholarship which is most definitrly absent. How can students be expected to grow up with a balanced view of the World and their fellow humans, if they are subjected to this iresponsible "education"?