JR'S
Free Thought Pages
No Gods ~ No
Masters
|
JR'S
Free Thought Pages |
|
On
the Existence of God or Gods The dispute about whether god exists, like so many in philosophy, depends on the mistaken assumption that there is a clearly defined concept (in this case “God”) that can be used to formulate a question with a definite answer. Arguing whether certain things do or do not exist is pointless when the relevant notion of existence in question is so ill defined. I submit that the question concerning the truth or falsity of the assertion “God exists” is just one of those essentially empty questions that has an aura of profundity like “Why is there anything at all?” or “What is the speed of time?”. Moreover, assuming that a coherent definition can be formulated, anyone who asserts "But you can't prove that God does NOT exist" is simply demonstrating their ignorance of a fundamental point of logic. One cannot prove the non-existence of anything. I cannot, for example, prove that Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy do not exist. The burden of proof for any extraordinary claim always rests with the claimant. A Spin on the Ontological Argument That something is wrong with the ontological argument is indicated by the fact that, if it were successful, it could be used to prove the existence of a variety of things other than God. For example, I have an idea “that than nothing nastier or more evil can be conceived.” This, it would seem would be a proof for the existence of the devil. Or perhaps I have an idea “that there is nothing worse than the worst music that can be conceived.” This would prove the existence of Rap Music. Gratuitous Evil and the mysterious behaviour of the Christian God One of the most convincing arguments for the refutation of religions that posit an omnipotent, omniscient omni-benevolent God is based on a simple inductive inference. The British philosopher John L. Mackie in his book The Miracle of Theism” presents s convincing case for atheism based on the huge volume of gratuitous evil in the world. In the book he cites several examples of such evil but his primary example is the Spanish Influenza outbreak of 1919. This virus killed 20 million people over the short period of three months – twice as many as were killed in World War I. But just as quickly as it appeared, the virus mysteriously disappeared and its virulence has never reappeared. How could a perfectly good all-powerful God allow this to happen? Is God not really omnipotent or is he merely an ominous evil alien or devil incarnate? Over the years Christian apologists have gone to great lengths to refute arguments such as these but have failed miserably. Their best response has been “it’s just a mystery” and “God has his reasons and we must just have faith in Him”. Now if I were to attempt to argue that the mole problem in my back yard is the work of evil invisible purple goblins and present as evidence “it’s just a mystery” and “just accept my word on faith” I would likely be denounced as the village idiot. Similar examples can be cited from everyday experience such as verdicts on jury trials where no empirical evidence is presented - only faith based explanations. The theist might argue that God’s failure to prevent gratuitous evil is based on creating some greater good. For example, the pain of a vaccination and chemotherapy are a means to some potential greater good. Hence if God exists we surely must have substantive evidence that all the evils in the world are a means to some greater good. The theist may continue with the same line of reasoning by declaring “there may be some greater good that we have no way of knowing about”. Well of course many things are logically possible, but are they even remotely probable. It’s possible that Elvis is dancing the Disco to “Don’t Be Cruel” on the far side of Neptune. But to ask someone to accept such a proposition based on faith or the fact that Elvis works in mysterious ways simply will not do. Forty Skeptical Issues Concerning Theism 1) How would you define "God," and why are
you convinced such a thing exists?
Omniscience, Humor, Surprise and God God is that being who cannot both inquire and laugh. A sense of humor and a sense of wanting to know (i.e., having an inquiring mind and perhaps being surprised) is contingent upon not being omniscient. Critical thought and the process of inquiry entail moving from one state of knowing to, hopefully, a better or more truthful state. Since God has perfect knowledge, He has already arrived at that ideal epistemic condition. Thinking and inquiry are therefore reduced to a superfluity and redundancy. Nor can God have a sense of humor since humor involves the possibility of being surprised and God, in his omniscience, knows all punch lines and the resolution of all paradoxes.. It is only through not knowing (i.e., doubting, lacking information or knowledge) that motivates thinking. Perfection and a state of complete omniscience would be horrific since free will and the necessity for thought would be redundant. Is it no wonder that the Bible is void of humor and says nothing in favor of the intellect. God is a bore - he’s a “know it all”.
The Concept of Sin Sin is a distinctively religious notion and, not unlike many other Christian doctrines, is a vehicle of control. Sin, in particular, is a convenient construct designed to induce guilt and shame in the believer thereby creating a problem that demands a solution. The solution is of course well known. It involves relinquishing one's intellectual autonomy and self-esteem to a palliative called "accepting Christ as your personal savior" and subsequently joining the Church in order to escape eternal damnation. Eric Hoffer described this phenomenon aptly in his fascinating book The True Believer: Self-surrender, which is...the source of a mass movement’s unity and vigor, is a sacrifice, an act of atonement, and clearly no atonement is called for unless there is a poignant sense of sin. Here as elsewhere, the technique of a mass movement aims to infect people with a malady and then offer the movement as a cure. (1951, p. 42) Cosmic Religion What would happen to the Christian faith if finally we did discover sentient beings like ourselves on other planets within solar systems far removed from ours? How could such a faith be maintained? Was there a similar crucifixion on this other planet or was Christ (the proclaimed son of God) only interested in redeeming the souls of the inhabitants on our own planet? If so, then Christ is reduced to a somewhat parochial role in the cosmos. Multiple crucifixions and resurrections would not, however, seem strange to many eastern religions such as Hinduism which postulates multiple realities.
Free Enterprise As G. K. Chesterton once said, “Free enterprise is great but it’s never been tried.” The free part is important because the so-called risk taker or entrepreneur gets a free ride on the backs of the taxpayer in the form of tax breaks and write-offs. And when he pollutes the environment or when he goes bankrupt, the taxpayer picks up the tab.
Power Corrupts To the best of my knowledge, all known dictators and tyrants have been strong believers in God and absolute authority. I don’t find this at all paradoxical, but consistent with their authoritarian mind-set. “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. What does this say about God?”
Prayer Obviously, if prayer worked, its professional advocates (priests, ministers, mullahs, rabbis, and other practitioners of the magic arts) would be the healthiest people on earth. But they are not. They drop dead with the same frequency as everyone else.
Wealthy Psychics? It’s curious that psychics are not extremely wealthy individuals. It seems most would be very, very rich if they only made a few strategic predictions on the right stocks or picked the winning number on an impending lottery. Some, of course argue, that psychics don’t use their powers for personal profit. Why, then do they charge $40 or more per hour for their services? This is laughable and insulting. Moreover, if a person had powers of prediction, why would that person advertise the fact?
Causation and God Every event has a cause and God exists are inconsistent propositions. God is an event and hence must be caused.
On the Soul If what really counts about us is our souls and not our bodies, why did the god of Christendom wait so many billions of years for our inessential bodies to evolve by the bumbling, painful, and wasteful process of natural selection? Why didn’t he just zap our souls into existence at the dawn of the Precambrian Era (right after he allegedly separated light from darkness) and forget about our bodies? Why did God wait so long to bring the spiritual dimension into the physical framework of space and time?
God Works in Mysterious Ways Anytime something good happens, it’s God’s will and a reward for good behavior; anytime something bad happens, it’s part of God’s larger plan, and even though you may not understand the longer term benefits, these will become evident in due time. Either way it’s a neat and tidy theistic world-view – everything has its place and its purpose according to God’s grand design. It’s so annoying when a natural disaster strikes and those who survive thank the Lord for their survival on national television. But what of those who were not so fortunate? Many professional athletes, particularly football players, are notorious in thanking Jesus for their victories. I wonder what this says about the losers?
The Inverse Pascal’s Wager : Disbelieving in God is a good bet If God does not exist then I can feel no loss and I have been right all along (moreover, I have maintained my intellectual integrity - even if it turns out that God does exist). To have doubted His existence is the proper epistemic stance and this is clearly what God would have us do. His gift of rationality surely implies that we use it. And if God in fact does want us to have faith in him, since he is a forgiving God, he will not punish us for doubting him. In fact he may reward those skeptics for their attention to logic and rationality.
Thoughts on Solipsism Solipsists Anonymous: The only group which has, by necessity, only one member. “I’m a solipsist and I cannot understand why others are not also.” Anti-solipsist: Everyone exists except me. Solipsist: “Clyde, you do not exist.” Clyde: “Just who is it that you claim does not exist?”
Omnipotence If God is omnipotent, why did he feel it necessary to rest after the sixth day? Can God construct a puzzle that he cannot solve or violate the laws of logic such as the law of non-contradiction?
Religion, Power and Control Religions, in particular Christianity, are the vehicles those in power have always used to add an aura of determinism to the status quo. In embracing an economic system that mandates an acquiescent working class, those in positions of power, the corporate elite and management class, have crated a continuum of social stratification from extremely poor to extremely rich that not only allows immorality and injustice (business is business) - but encourage it.
On
War
God and Infinite Regress Those who argue that God is a “necessary being” - the ultimate end to all questioning is just a way of avoiding an inevitable infinite regress of questioning. When theologians are asked “what or who created God?”, their response is generally something like “some things are simply a mystery”. But why not invoke Ockham’s razor before making such a statement and simply say “creation” or “the existence of the universe” is a pre-existing mystery and let it go at that? What use is a hypothesis for explaining a mystery when the very hypothesis raises another mystery just as baffling as the one it attempts to explain?
My Proof for the non-existence of an omni-benevolent loving God Moles, tapeworms, mosquitoes, deadly viruses, genetic diseases and rap music.
The Evils of Secular Humanism or …. Is God dead? American televangelists are always ranting about the evils the encroaching secularization of society. The facts, however, tell a much different story. In the most recent Gallup Poll(1996), 94% of Americans say they believe in a “personal God”. That leaves 6% who are atheists, agnostics or deists. The enemy of fundamentalist Christianity is not Humanism, but competing belief systems, including other mainstream religions, cults and other paranormal, supernatural belief systems. In the same Gallup Poll it was found that more people believe in astrology than believe in evolution. In addition, 90% believe in heaven, 79% believe in miracles, 73% believe in hell, 72% believe in angels and 65% believe the devil is real.
On the non-existence of God or Gods Problems with defining god notwithstanding, proofs for the existence of god over the past two millennia have been abysmal failures. Philosophers have soundly refuted all attempts. Others have tried to take it a step further and prove the non-existence of god - but anyone who has taken a course in Logic 101 knows the impossibility of proving a universal negative. One cannot prove the non-existence of anything and that includes Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy or the Invisible Flying Pink Unicorn. There are however moral arguments and arguments of incoherence that make the likelihood of the existence of certain kinds of gods extremely unlikely – for example, the sort of personal god posited by Islam and Christianity – a god who is omnipotent, omniscient and who loves us in the way I love my children and my cat. It is more difficult, however, to disprove the kind of god who closely resembles a malevolent government bureaucrat with a bad attitude. Over 2000 years ago Epicurus pointed out the inconsistencies inherent in a God who has the power to repair the ills of the world but fails to do so. Subsequently, many other philosophers have exposed the inconsistencies of the attributes of such a god depicted in the Koran and Bible in conjunction with the evil and suffering in the world. The Epicurean analysis does show, along with the evidence of our own senses and intellect, that there is no evidence for a powerful, knowing and benevolent god. Instead, the evidence is totally consistent with the lack of such a being. That does not disprove such a god’s existence, but it comes close enough for many of us. The Bible, in particular, is plagued by internal inconsistencies that are compelling evidence it was not written by a perfect being. More interesting than whether religion is true is whether it is useful. Has it been, on the whole, a force for Good or Evil in the world? In my view religion’s utility is far more amenable to investigation than it is to its truth. When I confront religious people, particularly those who lean toward fundamentalism, I try to point out how their religious leaders emphasis on obedience to God rather than ethical behavior leads only to an attitude of prudence, not morality. I think Bertrand Russell was correct when he argued that religion was based on fear and not the desire to do good works. In the final analysis, it really makes no difference to anyone whether people believe in god or the invisible flying pink unicorn. We only care about how they behave as a result of such beliefs. Although we may be appalled at a person’s lack of intellectual integrity in accepting propositions based on faith, when we argue against religious belief it ought to be because we feel that, on balance, it is destructive. On that basis I think our case is extremely compelling. It benefits no one to stretch arguments for the non-existence of god beyond their breaking point. The total lack of evidence for the existence for such entities should be sufficient for an agnostic stance at the very least.
Converting Religionists I don’t really have any interest in getting religionists to modify their irrational belief systems. I just don’t want them to impose them on me or infringe on my rights. If they really want their personal Sky Daddy, they can have it. I just don’t want them messing up the schools any more than they are, let alone shooting abortion doctors and flying airplanes into skyscrapers. What they do in the privacy of their own homes or places of worship is really none of my concern.
What is religion? “Religion is a socio-political institution for the control of People’s thoughts, lives, and actions; based on ancient myths and superstitions perpetrated through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing.”
Atheists in jail? W.T. Root, Professor of Psychology at the University of Pittsburgh, examined 1,916 prisoners and said, “Indifference to religion, due to thought, strengthens character,” adding that Unitarians, Agnostics, Atheists and Freethinkers were visibly absent from penitentiaries, particularly those holding hard core offenders. This fact proves very little but is interesting nevertheless. But throughout recorded human history no one has ever been killed in the name of atheism.
Anthropomorphisms? Can you give me an example of a religion where God is not given human attributes? There are philosophical concepts of God which amount to little more than “it’s a mysterious thing behind everything,” but such concepts don’t inspire the devotion that leads to a religion. The attribution of human qualities to and reification of gods is almost universal and certainly applies to the gods of the major religions. Except to those unwilling to see the obvious it is the clearest possible evidence that man invents his gods in his image rather than the other way around. Combine that with the fact that there is no credible evidence for the existence of any god and the entirely fictional nature of gods becomes clear to all those who want to see.
Another man’s God Most Christians, Jews, Muslims and Hindus today can see the problems with deities like Set, Thor, Zeus, Ahura-Mazda etc. I think it is sometimes possible to get them to apply their critical thinking to the currently popular concepts. From there you can make generalizations about the nature of religious belief, and perhaps get back to the root question—where’s the evidence for ANY deity?
Enlightenment From all we can tell from historians and anthropologists, every ancient society worshipped some god or other. Superstition ran rampant. Human Beings denied their own freedom and autonomy by praising or blaming the Gods for their fates. Not until some bold minds like Ludwig Feuerbach, Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche, Bertrand Russell and Sigmund Freud did it become thinkable, much less fashionable, to preach atheism. These were inventors of a new order, one that allowed human beings to make up our game as we go along, unfettered by superstitions about the will of the Gods or fear of their punishment. For my part I am appalled at how slowly this invention has been accepted. Over 60 percent of Americans still agree (somewhat, mostly, or strongly) that, “The world was literally created in six days, as the Bible says,” (confirmed on three successive national probability sample surveys by the Values and Lifestyles Program at SRI International). Islam claims over a billion devotees. And I find it remarkable the number of highly educated, intelligent adults who still embrace a childlike, neurotic, wish-fulfilling belief in God. Without kneeling down to positivism, or overestimating what is knowable, or underestimating the mysteries that remain lurking in the individual and social unconscious, let us nevertheless celebrate our liberation from superstition, remain humble before forces that transcend our individual egos, but accept the collective responsibilities of human freedom. “We are as gods so we might as well get good at it.”
Religious Fundamentalism The doctrine that there is an omnipotent, omniscient, omni benevolent supernatural entity that is deeply and personally concerned with JR’s sex life. In fact His concern is such that he sacrificed His only son for JR’s benefit.
Fuzzy Logic Has fuzzy logic and relativism given rise to: almost winning = winning and almost passing = passing. Bivalence is out and multivalence is in. “A and not A” is now acceptable. Hot can mean cold, true can mean false. The fact that many ideas, concepts and things are matters of degree it does not follow that all things are matters of degree. In our ordinary language when we say “Universal gravitation is true” or “The sun will rise tomorrow” we do not imply that these are absolute truths. When we say that a statement is true, we mean based on the best available evidence, our experiences, inference to the best explanation, most cogent arguments, most plausible, etc. For instance, one might say that the probability that the sun will rise tomorrow is .9999999999. In any event, how do fuzzy logicians handle statements such as "The Law of the Excluded Middle is either true or it is not true." Kierkegaard and the Limits of Rationality Kierkegaard’s emphasis on gratuitous faith has fostered a whole family of existentialisms, whose common quality is the advocacy of the making of dramatic choices in life unsupported by reasons. It is fun to take risks, and there is the thrill of making an indefensible and apparently non-rational choice. But his can hardly be recommended as a general plan of life.
Like Pascal in his wager, and like James with his experimental faith,
Kierkegaard makes belief a matter of the will. What Kierkegaard does is present
to his reader’s acceptance of a picture of a purely voluntary faith which
relies on no intellectual support and spurns skeptical inquiry and criticism.
Pascal’s infamous wager is only one of many enchanted attempts to transform
ignorance into knowledge.
Education and Responsibility The
person who reflects on the probable effects of his decisions on those who are
likely to be affected, who relies on reason and evidence, if only to eliminate
some choices, acts responsibly even if he later finds that he has done the wrong
thing. One
cannot teach one’s students, not even oneself, always to do what is best; but
one can try to teach oneself to become a little less impulsive and irrational
and more conscientious and responsible. Nobody favours always acting with an
utter disregard for evidence and reason; but some people admonish us to throw
both to the wind when it comes to the most important choices - which is rather
like being very careful when walking, but shutting both eyes firmly when running
at high speeds or like picking one’s dinner guests carefully while picking
one’s spouse out of a hat. Today’s students have been conditioned by an overly nurturing, handholding educational system not to take responsibility for their own actions. The prime responsibility surely rests with the devotees of customer and consumer driven education and enrolment maximizing educational administrators who foster an atmosphere in which teachers must exert near Herculean effort to make the necessary adaptations to ensure that all students are successful and happy. ”Failure” has now become anathema to the education system and the responsibility for success of a student has been placed squarely on the shoulders of the classroom teacher.
Are Lotteries For Dummies? The organizers of lotteries give maximum publicity to past winners, and
of course say nothing about the vast majority who has won nothing. By
publicizing winners, they make winners foremost in the minds of potential buyers
of tickets and hence induce them believe that they are more likely to win than
is actually the case. Psychologists refer to this faulty reasoning as the availability
error; a distortion of reality based on what is made available to the
subject. What becomes available to a
subject is often a function of whatever produces an emotional response, dramatic effect or concrete image. For example, a murder committed by the Pope would receive far
more coverage by the media then Joe Shmuck? Why do stockbrokers advise their
client to buy when the market is up and sell when it is down? Why do more people
buy flight insurance when they hear of an air disaster? Any escape from the mundane seems to be a motivating factor
in beliefs such as these and often explain the appeal of the paranormal and the
supernatural. Returning to the subject of lotteries, there is a quite persuasive line
of reasoning that argues to the conclusion that anyone who ever buys a lottery
ticket or gambles is a casino is either crazy or stupid. This irrationality is a
distressing conclusion, given the large number of people we’re referring to.
When is a choice rational? Answering this question is difficult, but some
philosophers have argued that thinking in terms of expected utility of an action
can make progress towards an answer. The utility of something for you is simply a measure of how much you like
it. If you prefer X to Y, then X has more utility than Y. If you would trade two
Y’s for one X, then X has at least twice the utility of Y. In some cases we
might even be able to assign numbers to the utilities someone gives some things.
Now we can say that the rational choice among alternatives is the choice that
would give the person the greatest utility. If an action has multiple
consequences, its utility is the sum of the utilities of each of the
consequences. But many choices are made when we are not sure what the results will be.
Sometimes the outcomes of our action are a complete surprise, pleasant or
otherwise. However, sometimes we can at least judge the probabilities of outcomes of our choices. When we know the
probability of an outcome, we can calculate its expected utility by multiplying its utility by its probability.
Suppose, for example, that there is one chance in 1000 you will win a lottery,
and if you win you get $3000. The
expected utility of this outcome is .001 x $3000 m= $3. There is a probability
of .999 you will get nothing, the expected utility of which is .999 x $0 = $0.
So the expected utility of all outcomes is $3 + $0 = $3. But suppose it
costs $1 to buy a ticket. Then the
total expected utility of playing this lottery is $3 - $1 = $2. If you buy only
one lottery ticket once, you are likely to lose, of course. But if you play many
times, you can expect to come out ahead in the long run, by $2
per game played. Hence, it’s a good idea to play this lottery. But suppose that same lottery costs $5 per ticket. The total expected
utility of playing this lottery is now $3 - $5 = -$2, meaning that in the long
run you will lose $2 per game. This
is not a rational way to make money since each time you play it is equivalent to
throwing $2 down the toilet. The games run by lotteries and casinos all
work like this second lottery. They all offer players an average expected loss
on each game. The reason is simple: they are running their games to make money
and this means that the player must be put into a position of major
disadvantage. Now why would anyone play a sucker’s game such as this? Here are two
possible reasons: (a) they are suffering from a psychological problem that
forces them into such self-destructive behavior; (b) they do not understand the
logic behind expected utility. Putting the matter succinctly, they are either
crazy or stupid, or both. But before you sink into a major depression about the
mental health and intelligence a large portion of the human race, consider two
things people might say to explain why they play lotteries and gamble in
casinos. (1)
“I’m
having fun.” What this means in terms of our calculations is that we have not
calculated the overall utility of the second lottery correctly, because we have
not factored in the enjoyment of playing. Suppose that the fun is worth, in
monetary terms, $3 per game. Even though the average money loss will be $2, the
fun value gain is $3; so all considered, you will be ahead, on average, by the
equivalent of $1 each game. You will still lose money in the long run, but you
will have enough fun playing the game to make it worthwhile. (2)
“The
five dollars I spend on the ticket means next to nothing to me, but if I won the
prize it would be worth a great deal.” This again means that we have not
calculated the worth of each game correctly. The calculation multiplies the utility
- a measure of desirability - times its proobability. Now we have merely stuck in
dollar figures here. Using these implies that $3000 has six hundred times the
value of $5, but this may not be the case. Here, in fact, what the person seems
to be saying is that the worth of $3000 to him or her is greater than
six-hundred times the worth of $5. Suppose, then that we assign (arbitrarily) a
utility of 5 units to $5 and a utility of 10,000 units to $3000. This makes the
calculation quite different: the average payoff is (001 x 10,000) + (.999 x 0) =
10 units. The cost of playing is 5 units, so we are ahead on average 10 - 5 =5
units per game. Many in Canada have played Lotto
6-49. Anyone with a freshman course in probability can determine the probability
of winning the “big one”. Roughly speaking, it’s the same probability as
an Elvis manned UFO striking the Loch Ness Monster as an alien
abduction of Wayne Gretzky is taking place. And as I have previously mentioned, in the press we
only hear of those who have won, not the thousands who did not.
And of course everyone has talked to someone who knew someone who won, a
fact that is irrelevant to the probabilities. As I understand it one must pick 6
different numbers between 1 and 49 with order if choice irrelevant. Using the language of
combinatorics we are dealing with a combination, rather than a permutation. The
probability would then be one chance in [49x48x47x46x45x44) /
(6x5x4x3x2x1)] = 13,983,816 or as a decimal approximately .000000071511 This analysis perhaps restores your faith in humanity’s sanity and intelligence. But then again there is the popularity of Wrestlemania, the X-Files, “Tractor Pulls”, 1-800 Psychics and Astrology.
For Home:
|
Ruminations of a Skeptic
