Reason Rally: Misunderstanding Atheism? (Part 3 of 4)

Before I go further, I want to comment that I am not doing a personal attack on James.  I am very grateful to him that he took the time and effort to read my post and comment so thoroughly on it.  But I do think there were some fallacies in his arguments, and I wanted to discuss where those fallacies were.  This is  because we all think we are right.  I think I'm right, you think you're right.  We all think we have good reasons for what we believe.  But James intimated that the reasons why he left Christianity were because of reason and evidence.  As such, I just want to make sure those reasons of his were sound, because if they were similar to the reasons he gave, those are no reason to leave Christianity behind.  In fact, I am wondering whether he was fully thinking through his arguments for atheism.

The same can be said of those attending the Reason Rally.  I am not saying that they have no reasons for their atheistic beliefs.  I am saying I wonder whether they really think through those reasons.  As I argued in the past, atheism may seem like it is supported by reason, on the surface, but when you dig deep enough, you find a bunch of problems.  Because of that, I am slightly amused at the use of the term "Reason Rally" to describe this event.

On that note, we shall now continue with our discussion of James's points.  In this post, I'll tackle some that are near and dear to my heart; some that specifically deal with the question of whether Christianity and reason go together.

Point 3: Faith is blind.

As I mentioned before, this is simply incorrect.  The commenter Kenny also makes this point in my last post.  However, I do sympathize with James for his thinking this.  After all, as I said above, this misconception is not propagated by atheists (who stand to benefit from it), but instead by much of the older generation unltra-conservative Christians.  (I am sorry, sorry, sorry if I've incorrectly categorized anyone with this statement.  This is a broad generalization and has many exceptions.)  Because this point of view is not only prevalent in the ultra-conservative church, but is also promoted, many younger Christians (perhaps James?) turn to atheism when they don't receive good reasons to hold onto their faith.  What I am hoping, and I think we are seeing it all around us, is that this incorrect view of biblical faith is going to be replaced by a more accurate view.

In a comment on my previous post, Kenny left some representative bible passages that demonstrate that biblical faith is based on reason, which I will not repeat.  But I will say that the Greek pistis translated "faith" in the NT implies a faith built on reason.  Additionally, as you read through the old and new testaments, you repeatedly see that God uses evidence in the real world to inspire people to faith in Him.  Many of Paul's and Peter's sermons in Acts start with the Exodus story, which has always been viewed as central to Jewish history, and has been regarded as evidence of God's hand acting in the world to inspire His people to belief in Him.  Many of the Psalms describe this as well for the same reason.  In Hebrews, the author gives us a definition of biblical faith: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen (Heb 11:1, NKJV)."  Thus we see that biblical faith is in something not seen, because of the evidence.


Additionally, many times, Jesus says if you don't believe his words, at least believe because of the evidence: his miracles.  In I Cor 15, Paul gives a number of names of those who profess to have seen the risen Christ. He concludes that passage by saying that most of these people are still alive, though some have passed away.  Because the context of this statement is his first letter to the Corinthains, scholars agree that Paul was telling them to go and check out the testimonies of these folks.  To test whether what Paul was saying was true.  No, biblical faith is not in the absence of, or contrary to, the evidence.  It is in light of the evidence.

Furthermore, if you read James's comments regarding faith, reason, science, and secularism, he does nothing to refute my statements (which I have backed up in earlier blog posts) that "reason, logic, and the rationality of the universe find a much nicer fit within theism."  Nor have his arguments refuted my statement that "[a]s far as we can tell, each of these things [the laws of physics, the laws of logic, and the rationality of the universe] is an immaterial, transcendent reality, something that makes no sense in a materialistic worldview."  All he has done is describe some examples where the Christian church has erred in science.  However, many of these examples are caricatures of the actual historical events.  For example, we now know the Galileo affair was more of a political disagreement than a scientific one.  Moreover, the young-earth creationism branch of Christianity is not historical Christianity; it has only arisen in English-speaking countries since the early 1800s, and is mainly based on a single errant interpretation of the bible.  On the other hand, as Kenny rightly points out in his comment on my previous post, most if not all of the fathers of modern science were Christians.

Point 4: Christianity has no evidential basis.

Here James argues there is no evidence of "a talking serpent, a staff turning into a snake, or a Jewish zombie..."  In a way, I sympathize with him.  After all, some of these miracles are difficult to visualize actually happening, especially the first two.  I would add to his list a burning bush, waters parting and standing up like walls, a talking donkey (by the way, the snake and the donkey are the only two talking earthly animals in the whole of the bible), and a man killing 1000 men with a donkey's jawbone.  These are all things the bible claims to have happened.  How do we square this with our own personal experiences?

Before I go on, I would like to rebuke James for his rhetoric, which I am sure he knows does not reflect the historical view of the resurrection (a Jewish zombie?), and which I am sure he is choosing on purpose to try to make the Christian point of view seem more ridiculous than it really is.  We should not need to use those tactics when describing the opposing position if the position we are defending really is on solid ground.  Let the arguments speak for themselves rather than an intentional mischaracterization of the other side's arguments.

Again, back to the question at hand.  Does Christianity have an evidential basis?  The answer of course is yes, it does.  I understand if many are not convinced by the evidence, but it is out there.  In fact, as I pointed out in my last post, I describe 18 very strong lines of evidence that favor a theistic worldview in general, and Christianity in particular.  For example, the universe had a beginning, which implies it had a beginner.  (I know that James attempted to refute this argument.  Stay tuned until next time to see my discussion of it.)  The laws of physics of the universe must be exquisitely finely-tuned for life to exist.  (See below for my discussion of James's point about this.)  The environment we live in (the earth, the moon, the sun, the other planets in our solar system, the solar system's place within our galaxy, the type of galaxy we live in, the list goes on and on) must also have been exquisitely finely-tuned for life to be possible.  The timing of life is exquisite. Etc.  The statement that there is no evidence in favor of Christianity is clearly false. I am not saying that many people do not try to wiggle their way out of it, claiming plausible deniability on each of these points, but that does not mean there is no evidence for Christianity.

So, what should we do with this evidence?  (See the next point.)

Point 5: One should avoid God of the gaps arguments.

One thing we should definitely not do with the evidence is make a God-of-the-gaps argument.  I think James is implicitly making this point when he says, "Just because we don't know why there are laws of physics doesn't point at all to there being some intelligent design behind it."  However, that is not my argument.  I am not saying that we don't know where the laws of physics come from, therefore there must be a God who made them.  No, I am saying that the existence of transcendent, immaterial, and real entities argues for the existence of a transcendent mind.  This is not an argument from ignorance, it is a positive argument for something beyond our universe.


OK, so perhaps, as James suggests, there is a large enough sampling of "alternative" universes in a mother multiverse that explains away the fine tuning.  In my original post, I state that that presents us with a bigger problem. If you have to fall back on an unlimited number of universes to explain away the data that you do not like, then you are in effect appealing to an ad hoc mechanism that can explain anything.  Do you see the problem with that?  The multiverse explains too much.  Why in the world would the multiverse explain such a gross violation of our probabilistic expectations in one case, but in all other cases (ie, the reliable operability of the laws of physics, chemistry, etc on a day-to-day basis) we claim rationality?  This is exactly what I was saying when I stated that atheism does violence to our reason.  Let's just say something astronomically improbable is the "cause" of the universe, and then go from there.  This is not an explanation; it's voo-doo magic.


The multiverse has a series of other insurmountable problems for the atheist.  First, a trio of scientists have shown that even the multiverse requires a beginning.  Second, the multiverse also requires fine-tuning.  Third, if the multiverse were true at the level required to explain the fine-tuning of our universe, we end up in absurd situations, such as our universe being simply a computer simulation. 


James said that "[i]t may be plausible that our universe is just one of an unlimited number of universes in the multiverse.  But as of yet, like with god, there's no solid evidence to support it."  His point here was that we shouldn't jump to conclusions without solid evidence. Let's wait and see. But the problem with this is there is enough evidence to conclude some things.  This is what I've just done.


Finally, one may argue that we should never insert God into our gaps in knowledge, no matter whether the evidence points to a God or not.  We should always hold out for a naturalistic explanation.  But why so?  If we peel back the facade of this argument, we see that what the person is really saying is that no matter how unlikely the naturalistic explanation, no matter what the evidence is in favor of a God, we should always favor the naturalistic explanation.  But as I've argued elsewhere, this is precisely the definition of blind faith.  Think about it.  This position is saying that I don't care what evidence you put forth, I will never believe you because I've already made up my mind about it.  Now, be careful here, I am not saying this is James's position.  But I am saying this is a common pitfall; don't fall into it.

Reason Rally: Misunderstanding Atheism? (Part 2 of 4)

Last week I posted on the Reason Rally and what I thought about the values and reason atheists should ascribe to, based on the implications of their worldview.  This week I am answering some comments that particular post drew from atheists.  The main comment I got across all comments was that I was mischaracterizing atheism. In fact, from the atheists I've spoken with about the Reason Rally, they have said that one of the purposes of the rally is to clear up some of these misunderstandings. To show what atheism really is about.


But am I getting it wrong?  According to the atheists I talk to, some would definitely say yes.  Here's the problem: when they try to convince me their point of view is not what I am saying it is, the arguments lack...substance.  


In this second post of four, I begin to lay out the arguments commenter James brought to bear on my post from last week.  He has nine main points from his arguments, and here, after delineating those nine, I respond to the first three.  In subsequent posts, I will respond to the other six.

The full series of arguments.

Let me start now by listing his statements that I agree with, or at least can see his point of view:

• There isn't really any one "atheist worldview".
• [T]here are as many different worldviews practiced by theists as atheists.
• [T]hroughout history we see Christian regimes commit atrocities as much as if not more so than non-theists.
• [B]elief in a deity doesn't make someone good or bad-some Christians are moral and some atheists are moral.
• Reason and logic are reality based.
• Science says, "Here's the evidence, what rational conclusions can we draw from it?"
• There are universal morals found in almost all developed societies regardless of religion.
• Question everything and be open to skeptical inquiry.
• Know that doubt is never a bad thing.

I agree with all of the things in these statements.  The problem is, none of them actually either (1) argue there is no God, or (2) address my points from my earlier post.  To be fair, there is a LOT more that James said.

Here is a summary of James's main points, in the order that you would encounter them in his comments:

1. I am mistaken about the logical conclusion of atheism; in fact "atheism says nothing about morality or moral values."
2. Following Christianity to its logical conclusion will result in a theocracy.  (This was a relatively minor point, but I think it needs addressing.)
3. "Faith is belief without, or often contrary to, the evidence."  
4. Along those lines, the Christian story has no compelling case for it.
5. You shouldn't put God in our gaps in knowledge.  
6. If God created the universe, then who created God? Proposing a God creates another level of complexity that is unneeded so is therefore discarded due to Ockam's Razor.
7. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
8. There has been no evidence of prayer being answered.
9. Morality actually comes from secularism, not from religion.

In this post, I will tackle points 1,2, and 9, since they seem to be related to each other.  In parts 3 and 4, I address points 3-5, then points 6-8.

Point 1: Atheism's logical conclusion is not a lack of moral values.

In particular, under this topic, James said, "Atheism says nothing about morality or values."  This is patently false, and philosophers know it.  The atheists that are honest about it realize that without a transcendent reality to ground objective morality (which is by definition transcendent, immaterial, and real), there can only be subjective morality.  Many are ok with that, but there are many problems with subjective (or relative) morality, including that it takes away our ability to stand in judgement over atrocities that are committed in other societies.  So, many atheists are not comfortable with it.  Some atheists propose an "objective" morality that is grounded not in a transcendent being, but in evolution (what I call evolutionary morals).  But as I said in my previous post, you find evolutionary morals are living on borrowed Judeo-Christian capital.

But even if you don't agree with me about the problems with subjective morality or evolutionary morals, my point here is that these atheists realize that atheism has a great deal to say about our morals.  (I am not making this up.)  And just because there are atheists out there that span a large spectrum of moral values, which James is absolutely correct in pointing out, it does not refute the logical, philosophical conclusion of atheism.  It only serves to support my statement in my other post that many atheists do not live according to their worldview.

Point 2: Christianity's logical conclusion is a theocracy.

"If you follow Christianity to its 'logical conclusion'...you end up with a theocracy found in places like Pakistan."  This is clearly not true.  Take passages like Romans 13, where Paul clearly lays out our proper submission to the secular governmental authorities.

In one of James's lines of evidence for this he says, "...[T]he Old Testament forbids...wearing clothes mad of two different fabrics."  I don't disagree with this statement per se, but I do want to point out that James is taking this passage completely out of context, and I think he knows it. After all, he professes:

...[R]emember I am an ex-Christian involved with lay-ministry for decades. I studied Bible courses at a Baptist college. I’ve read Dobson, McDowell, Lewis, Ham, Stroble (sic), and Colson...

So back to my point.  Yes, the OT does have a passage that says that, and it comes from the Levitical Law. The problem with using this against the veracity of the bible is that the Levitical Law is clearly divided into the moral law, the ceremonial law, and the laws specifically for Hebrew life.  This is clearly part of the third category.  There were specific reasons why you should not wear clothes made of two different fabrics; we know this today.  It's because the two fabrics stretch differently as they age, which would cause a tear in them later.  Indeed, this is actually more closely evidence the bible was supernaturally inspired rather than a point of ridicule. (I wouldn't hang my hat on it, though.) Unfortunately, atheists like to talk about these passages with glee, catching nominal Christians off guard with them, saying, "Look, see what ridiculous things your God says to do?"  So before you continue to poke fun at parts of the OT Law that say things like this, you should seriously ask yourself whether you are taking it out of context, because otherwise you are simply setting up a straw man argument.  I am quite surprised James used these sorts of tactics in his arguments, as he professes to be very knowledgeable about the bible.

Point 9: Morality comes from secularism.

In this point, which is possibly the longest point of James's comments, he describes how morality, as viewed by those in the church, has changed over time.  Moreover, the way in which morality has changed in the church is a reflection of how the secular world advanced these changes in morality.  He goes on to use slavery as an historical example of this, and homosexual rights in today's society as a timely example.  You know what?  I'm not going to argue here.  I definitely do not think he is using either example correctly, but I must admit neither issue is a strong point for me, so I will not try to give an explanation as to why.  I will simply concede his points here.  But do you see that even so, his arguments do not even come close to addressing my points from the previous post?

Let's unpack this a bit further.  James said, "A common misunderstanding that many theists have is that without god there is no morality and that religion is needed to have morality."  There are actually two theses in that one sentence.  The first is that many theists wrongly think God is needed for morality, and the second is that many theists wrongly think religion is needed to have morality.  I personally don't know if he's right about the second statement.  Is that a common misconception that theists hold?  I don't know, but if it is, then it saddens me, because I don't think that's a biblical idea at all.  Indeed, read any of the four gospels and you will see how Jesus exposes the religious leaders of his day for the hypocrites they are.  No, the bible says that our own religiosity gets in the way of our being moral.  But the main thing to note here is that I was not making this claim in my original post anyway.  What argument of mine is James trying to refute?

As for the first point, James is actually using circular reasoning, which is a point that I made in an earlier post.  He assumes god does not exist, sees morality in the world, and says that god is not needed for morality.  Rather than proving that morality still exists even if God does not, all he has proven is that you can believe morality exists even if you don't believe God exists.  This says nothing about whether or not (1) you are correct about God existing, (2) you are correct in your belief that morality exists, or (3) your two beliefs are not mutually contradictory.  My argument, which again is also held by (atheist) philosophers, remains that without God, there can be no objective morality.  As he did above in Point 1, all James has done here is show that many atheists hold mutually exclusive beliefs within their own worldview.

You may ask, how can I be sure of this?  Well, there are two positions here held in tension.  The first (my point) is that God is required for the existence of objective morality (independent of any individual's personal belief in the existence of God), and the second (James's point) is that some atheists live moral lives.  Are those mutually contradictory statements?  Of course not.  So the question boils down to, if the second statement is true (and let there be no doubt, I agree with James that this second statement is demonstrably true), what are the implications?  Is the implication that the first is false?  No, as I've just said, these are not mutually exclusive.  Instead, the implication, since the first statement rests on strong, solid philosophical ground, is that the atheists who live moral lives do not realize that God is the sole explanation of their own moral tendencies.

One more thing to point out here, and that is James has provided evidence in support of the existence of objective morality.  He says that our morals have changed over time, purportedly to get better.  The evil of slavery has mostly been abolished (from the Western world anyway), but this did not happen until after millenia of the stain of that evil being on the earth.  But if no God exists, and thus morality is relative, how can you even say that any change in morality is for the better?  How can you stand in judgement of the "evil" practice of slavery?  How can you say that any evolution in the way we view morality is "better"?  If you say something is better, you must have an objective standard by which to measure.  Now, I understand that James did not say objective morality does not exist, but the important thing is that atheistic worldview would.

What's next?

In the next couple of days, I will address James's Points 3-5, which largely deal with whether or not the Christian faith has reason on its side.  This is a major point of contention I have, and it should be fun.

Reason Rally: Misunderstanding Atheism? (Part 1 of 4)

Last week I posted on the Reason Rally and what I thought about the values and reason atheists should ascribe to, based on the implications of their worldview.  I got some pushback from some atheists commenting on that blog post, mostly contending that I have not characterized the atheist worldview (if such a thing even exists) correctly.  One thoughtful commenter, James, left a series of very long comments that I think are worth responding to.  I wouldn't normally devote a series of blog posts to a response to comments, but James was very thoughtful and polite, and I think he brought up some great points.  If you'd like to see his comments to my last post, in full, I have reproduced them at the end of this post.  

One of James's main points is that our morals do not come from religion, after all, there are so many religions and so many versions of even Christianity itself, how do we know which one has the right morality?  He mentions that some have used the bible to condone slavery, some have used it to condemn it.  Thus, how can objective morals come from a religion that can't even agree internally?  

Another point he made is that, just as there are many "versions" of Christianity, there is not just one atheistic worldview either.  So I must apologize for those I offended when I lumped all atheists into the same worldview.  I recognize there are many different takes that atheists may have on many things.

His third main point is that Christianity is based on faith, not reason, and in fact the church has gotten things wrong, scientifically, all along.

So the question is, are the commenters, and James in particular, correct that I have misunderstood atheism? Furthermore, are James's other points about morality, faith, science, and reason correct?  To be brief, no, I  do not think any of his comments come close to answering my arguments from my previous post.  If you read on, you'll find a brief summary of why that is true.  In a series of three more posts after this one, I provide a more in-depth discussion of these questions.  Also, at the end of this post, I have reproduced James's comments in full so that you can read them for yourself.

A brief summary.

I agree with some of James's statements, sharply disagree with others, but in general I find his arguments either unpersuasive (mostly because they do not directly address my main points from my previous post) or simply incorrect.  I am not saying this to be mean or to belittle him.  In fact, from his comments, he seems to be a very moral, thoughtful person.  However, his claims about morality coming from our secular society to religion do not actually address what I was saying.  He says that in general our society's morality evolves and also informs our understanding of religious morality.  I'm ok with that idea.

But do you see how that doesn't say anything about my point that objective moral values (which are by definition immaterial, transcendent, and real) must come from a transcendent mind (ie, God)?  Just because we are all aware of this moral standard, and Christians over the millenia have done a poor job adhering to that standard (a biblical principle, by the way), does not mean that the objective moral code does not exist.  In fact, it argues in favor of it (see Kenny's comment on James's comments on last week's post).  And it certainily does not mean that the logical conclusion of atheism is not a lack of moral values.  Atheistic philosophers understand this; there can be no objective morality if no God exists.  But we all get an itch in the back of our mind telling us that we should be moral, that we ought to do certain things.  So no atheist actually lives out the logical conclusion of his/her worldview.  That was exactly my point from my previous post, and nothing James has said in his thoughtful comments came close to refuting it; in fact, his arguments supported my conclusion.

James also argued that there is no evidence that a God exists, and in particular, faith is contrary to reason.  That is, unfortunately, a misunderstanding that has been propagated, sadly, by none other than the conservative Christian church in America.  Making a large section of Christianity a joke to most atheists, Christians have not promoted their children pursuing a degree in a STEM field, they have argued that there cannot be evidence for faith, because if you need evidence then you're not really believing, etc.  This is very sad to me, but this is also changing.  Biblical faith is based on evidence, not contrary to it.

So please stay tuned in the next couple of days for a more in-depth discussion of these comments.

James's comments:

Hi Greg, I'd like to offer a few thoughts on some of your points. I was a devout Baptist Christian for two decades until I realized that there is really no good evidence for the existence of god after all. I never wanted to be an atheist, but I had to be honest with myself and accept that inconvenient reality. I don’t hate god, just as I don’t hate Zeus, Ra, Santa Claus, or aliens.
Atheist world view:There isn't really any one "atheist worldview." Atheism simply states what one doesn't believe in, not what one believes – it is simply lack a belief in a god or gods. In the same way, It would be wrong for me to say the 9/11 hijackers represent the “theist worldview.” They were theists after all, but there are as many different worldviews practiced by theists as by atheists. If a theistic world view is better, then who's theism? The theism of the Taliban? The theism of Norwegian Christian terrorist Anders Breivik? Even in America, which Christian worldview should be endorsed by the government? Catholic socialists? Christian anarchists? Gay Christians? Anti-war Baptists? Jeffersonian Diets? Evangelicals who approve of torture? Baptists who picket American solders’ funerals? Mennonites who refuse the national anthem or pledge of allegiance? That is why so many Christians also support having a secular government, and support the separation of church and state. Our secular Constitution protects the government from takeover by theocrats who want to force their interpretation of morality on everyone, AND it protects churches’ rights to preach and worship as they so choose (or in my case, choose not to).
I think you may be mistaken about the "logical conclusion" of atheism. Atheism says nothing about morality or values. Atheists form their morals and values span the entire political spectrum from the socialism of atheist Karl Marx to the right wing libertarianism of atheist Ayn Rand, and everywhere in between. Many atheists are also Unitarian Univeralists, Humanists, non-theistic Buddhists, Objectivists, etc. 
If you follow Christianity to its “logical conclusion” – if by logical conclusion you mean a literalist, fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible - you end up with a theocracy exactly the same as the theocracies found in places like Pakistan - a religious government that forces their view of morality into courts, schools, and laws. Laws that discriminate against minorities and nonbelievers, laws that ban perceived sins - everything from birth control to alcohol and tobacco and caffeine and, as the Old Testament forbids, wearing clothes made of two different fabrics. Christian fundamentalists and Islamic fundamentalists are exactly the same. That's what secularism protects us from. Do you want the Fred Phelps and other extremist versions of Christianity force on you? Most moderate Christians would say no. If you agree, thank our secular Constitution. 
Yes, non-theists like Stalin and Mao were horrible rulers. (Hitler was a theist, however, and if you read some of his speeches he would frequently talk about needing god in society and how he's stamped out secularism in Germany. The Catholic Church was largely a collaborator with the Nazis before and during WW2 but there were also many Christian Germans who opposed the Nazis as well. It's interesting that WW2 was, in a big part, a fight of the non-theist Soviets versus the theist Nazis, but I digress). 
Not counting the theists like the Taliban, throughout history we see Christian regimes commit atrocities as much as if not more so than non-theists. The Crusades, the Spanish inquisition, the burning at the stake of atheists, pagans, etc. and pretty much all of the dark ages were marked by Christian theocracies in Europe. This is to say that belief in a deity doesn't make someone good or bad - some Christians are moral and some atheists are moral. Some Christians are evil and some atheists are evil. Deeds not creeds: What you believe is irrelevant. What you do is everything.
Reason and atheism:Reason and logic are reality based. Faith is belief without, or often contrary to, evidence. I can just find no evidence of a deity, any deity, much less the things the bible claims as truth such as a talking serpent, a staff turning into a snake, or a Jewish zombie who can telepathically communicates with us. Sorry, I just can't come to those conclusions rationally and without any evidence. I find the Christian creation story has no more evidence than any other creation myth that any other religion has offered throughout history. Christians has repeatedly fought a losing battle against science and reason. They claimed a geocentric universe until proven otherwise. They claimed that god created disease for a reason and that vaccines were a sin. They claimed that just 6,000 years ago Adam and Eve lived with dinosaurs and a talking serpent and have yet again been proven wrong. Religion says, “Here’s what we believe, what evidence can we find to support it?” Science says, “Here’s the evidence, what rational conclusions can we draw from it?”Just because we don't know why there are laws of physics doesn't point at all to there being some intelligent design behind it. If our universe had to have a creator, the creator had to have a creator as well. It's just another layer of complexity that doesn't have evidence and isn't necessary. It may be plausible that our universe is just one of an unlimited number of universes in the multiverse. But as of yet, like with god, there’s no solid evidence to support it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If I claim there’s an invisible dragon in my garage you’d want me to prove it. I would say you’d have to take my claims on faith and besides, you can’t prove I don’t have an invisible dragon. That’s why the burden of proof lies with those making the extraordinary claims that go contrary to our observable universe and that’s why skeptical inquiry is so important.It is the same thing with prayer – the lack of any evidence that it has any effect. The Christian says prayer can heal, yet we've never seen an amputee healed. Why won't god heal amputees who pray for healing? Perhaps either they lack the faith needed, god discriminates against amputees, god doesn’t love amputees as much, or maybe there just isn't a god that answers prayers.I’m sure you’ll point me to some pamphlet or tracts or YouTube video that purportedly proves the Bible is true but I doubt you have any argument I haven’t heard. Before you start giving rebuttals, remember I am an ex-Christian involved with lay-ministry for decades. I studied Bible courses at a Baptist college. I’ve read Dobson, McDowell, Lewis, Ham, Stroble, and Colson and I’ve found their arguments wanting. Still, I am open to any new testable peer reviewed scientific evidence that may be discovered in the future.The last argument for Christians usually falls into the, “well god changed my life” variety. Many Christians will say that. You’ll find many Jewish or Muslims or Buddhists or adherents to other faiths who can make exactly the same claim. If you wanted I could share my personal testimony on how leaving Christianity and belief in Jesus has brought me peace and joy in my life. More people are leaving religion than joining it, and the number of non-religious or ex-Christian Americans is rapidly growing. If you go the Reason Rally, I’m sure you’ll meet many happy and content ex-Christian atheists who can quote chapter and verse back and forth with you as much as you like.
The secular origins of morality:
A common misunderstanding that many theists have is that without god there is no morality and that religion is needed to have morality. This is quite far from the truth and quit often the opposite of it. Morality predates monotheism, and morality has developed as human knowledge and capacity for learning has developed. There are universal morals found in almost all developed societies regardless of religion. 
If Christianity was more moral than Buddhism then logically you'd expect predominately Christian nations like the US to have lower crime rates that a predominately non-Christian country like Japan, which it doesn't. This indicates that human morality has developed independently from religion, though many religions often borrow from each other. It's plausible that the authors of the New Testament borrowed themes and ideas on morality from Buddhism, which predates the New Testament.
As our morality develops, our values change to include this new enlightenment. The Old Testament, for example, includes passages that permit slavery and force rape victims to either be stoned to death or be forced to marry their rapists. The best example might be slavery. Around the founding of our country most Christians supported the institution of slavery which, after all, is permitted according to the Bible. By the time of the civil war, our human understanding of morality had changed so that slavery became a horrible attach on human dignity. There was a time in this country where roughly have of Christians were for slavery and half were against. The Southern Baptist Convention was formed primarily to uphold the rights of slave owners, for example. Eventually, as morality continued to evolve, nearly all Christians came to agree that slavery is wrong (though you will still find a few today that support it based on their literal interpretation of the Old Testament).
What changed on the issue of slavery? It wasn't the Bible that changes - the KJV said the same thing then as it does today. No, it was the continued growth of understanding of secular morality that changed people's minds. Morality doesn't come FROM religion, morality comes TO religion.
I believe in the inherent dignity and worth of all human life. Atheism only describes what I don't believe in. I'm a humanist Unitarian Universalist: that describes that I believe in. Our principals include the inherent worth and dignity of every person, the goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all, and equity and compassion in human relations.
Final thoughts:
I see that, like me, you live in North Carolina. Perhaps you've heard of the Constitutional amendment that will be on the May ballot that would write marriage discrimination into the state Constitution. It was forced through the NC General Assembly by radical right wing Christians who want to legislate their theocracy onto everyone. 
Many churches, even including many Baptist churches, in addition to my UU fellowship, are speaking out against this hate-filled amendment. Lesbian Christian singer Jennifer Knapp made an "It Gets Better" video for LGBT youth here in NC last year too. 
You see, Greg, we're right back where we were with the discussion on slavery in the sense that more and more Christians are supporting marriage equality. It's because morality is coming TO religion, not FROM religion. If you say morality comes from religion, and specifically Christianity, then who's morality? The Christians who supported slavery, or the Christians who struggled against slavery? The Christians who are for marriage equality, or the Christians who are against marriage equality? 
If Christians can't even decide on which sect's morality is right and yet we're supposed to take morality from them? Every Christian sect thinks only theirs is the one true way to be a Christian, and only theirs should be enshrined into our laws. No thank you. I'll take the freedom and liberty that a rational, logical, secular Constitution protects.
Greg, part of being a Unitarian Universalist is encouraging a free and responsible search for truth and meaning. I hope you will take this response as me simply offering an alternative view to consider. I hope you will continue to explore your beliefs and ask hard questions of your faith such as why does the Bible both condone and condemn slavery. Question everything and be open to skeptical inquiry. Know that doubt is never a bad thing.
We are not so different, you and I. For most my life I held the same beliefs as you, but during responsible search for truth and meaning took me down a different path in life.
I’d encourage you to read the morality that is found in humanism. There are both atheist and Christian humanists, they both share that the value we give human life is more important the dogma. Also, consider looking to Unitarian Universalism. It is a creedless fellowship that includes Christians, Buddhists, diets, and atheists. 
Thank you for your time, Greg.

Reason Rally: secular "values" and Reason

The "Reason Rally," to take place in Washington, DC on March 24th, is billed as the "largest gathering of the secular movement in world history."  The organizers claim that the rally will "deliver the good news:" that secularism is growing. They go on to state "the event is indeed a celebration of secular values."

Wow.  That's a lot to swallow, considering there are at least three hot-button topics just in that summary: (1) what are secularism's values, (2) is secularism really good news, and (3) does the title "Reason Rally" really apply well to a secularist gathering?

To summarize up front (for those who do not wish to read the long blog post), I contend that (1) secularism has no values (and cannot have values), (2) secularism is, in the long run, really really bad news, and (3) the title "Reason Rally" is actually a misnomer when applied to a secularist gathering; in fact, only in a theistic worldview does reason even make sense.

Before getting into that, though, I would like to point out that there will be a coordinated Christian response at the Reason Rally, and that a book from a Christian perspective, and in direct response to the Reason Rally, will is soon to be published.  (See more details at the website True Reason.)

First, what exactly are secular values, and why should they be celebrated?

I contend that the term "secular values" is actually something of an oxymoron.  If no God exists, and this universe is simply an accident full of only material and material causes, then why would there be immaterial values of any kind?  Furthermore, the most honest atheists, who have actually taken their worldview to its logical conclusion, end up in a very scary place.  Take Princeton Professor Peter Singer's views on abortion and infanticide, for example.  On his secularist view, infanticide is ok, as long as we can justify the fact that the infant has no expressed preference for whether it lives or dies.  As crazy and out there as it seems, this is the logical conclusion of his secularist worldview.

Famous atheist Richard Dawkins mirrors this statement in his book "A Devil's Chaplain," where he explains that the logical conclusion from a naturalistic evolutionary worldview is that humans have no more moral dignity and worth than a chimpanzee (or than any other organism, for that matter).  This is one of the places that I actually applaud Dr Dawkins, for honest reflection and taking his worldview to its logical conclusion.

To be clear, I am definitely not saying that all atheists will live this way.  On the contrary, of course most atheists do not.  But why not?  Because, even though the worldview they have chosen for themselves logically ends in a complete lack of moral values, we humans cannot seem to shake the feeling that such values exist.  So even though cold logic will lead an honest atheist to realize the world and universe have no meaning, and there is no reason to feel like our behavior should be restrained by any sort of moral code, we all know deep down inside that is not true.  Our intuition tells us there must be an objective moral code, even if we wish it not to be the case.

In other words, no atheist actually lives according to his worldview!

This is why you see so many atheists today twisting and turning to justify their worldview in light of its lack of values.  For example, atheist Michael Shermer insists there must be an objective moral code; it just came from evolution.  That way, he can rationalize his atheistic worldview with what he knows to be true: immaterial, objective morality exists. (And by the way, if you dig deep enough into Michael Shermer's view, you do find theistic, transcendent-to-evolution moral language smuggled in.  It's a classic example of an atheist using "borrowed capital" from the Christian worldview in order to get his atheistic worldview make sense.)

On the other hand, I think it's clear that secularism does lead to a degrading of our own personal moral values.  Even though most everyone does strive to be a "good person", if you do not believe anyone or anything is holding you morally accountable, then you can (for convenience, pleasure, financial gain, etc), compromise on what you would originally think is a moral standard.  Pretty soon, after enough compromising (and self-justification), you end up convincing yourself the moral value in question wasn't really part of the moral standard anyway.  I know this from my own life.  I used to be an atheist, and I wasn't a "bad" person back then.  But looking back on it, I can definitely point to a multitude of cases where I hurt others for my own selfish purposes, and I rationalized these instances away for my own self-justification.

For more discussion on this, see my series of posts on Postmodernism, Moral Relativism (here, here, and here), Evolutionary Morals, and Presumptions.

Second, is the fact that secularism is growing actually "good news"?

(And as a side note: did the organizers intentionally use that term, taking a subtle jab at Christianity, given that the word "gospel" literally means "good news?")  As I noted above, secular values, if they are even grounded in anything, actually degenerate into chaos when allowed to take their logical course. Why would the fact that secularism is on the rise actually be good news?

Another way you could ask this is, "What are the consequences of a secular worldview actually dominating society?"  Communist Russia, Hitler's Nazism, and Mao Tse-Tung's regime are all commonly-cited examples of the horrific results of a state-enforced secularism.  I am aware that many atheists will try to twist out of this charge, stating that these regimes did not have atheism as their primary belief system, and that atheism itself is not a belief in something (it is rather a non-belief in something), and thus you can't place the blame on atheism's shoulders. However, it is clear that worldviews have their consequences, and the Reason Rally is a direct (and self-promoted) proof that atheists consider secularism to be a belief system/worldview.

Finally, does secularism really have reason on its side?

While most people's knee-jerk reaction would be, "Of course," if you dig down deeper, you'll find that theism is the only worldview that actually makes rational sense.  Unfortunately, the name "Reason Rally" is a classic example of a loaded term in marketing.  Just by its name, it is implying that only in secularism will you find reason, rationality, and logic.  Why would anyone want to waste their time with religion, which can be characterized as superstition, mythology, and fairy tales?

Clearly, I don't agree with that implied position.  In fact, as I've argued in the past, reason, logic, and the rationality of the universe find a much nicer fit within theism.  To take it one step further, atheism is actually in conflict with rationality, reason, and logic.  Let me provide a brief summary of this for you.

The laws of physics, the laws of logic, and the rationality of the universe are all something that we would expect if the universe were the product of a rational mind (i.e., God).  As far as we can tell, each of these things is an immaterial, transcendent reality, something that makes no sense in a materialistic worldview.  The positive philosophical and scientific evidence for theism is overwhelming, and to deny it is a matter of volition rather than rationality.

Furthermore, the atheistic worldview not only provides a more uncomfortable fit for logic and reason, it actually does violence to our reason.  The secular worldview posits the occurrence of a series of astronomically improbable events to explain the existence of this universe and the fine-tuning necessary for life.  The common explanation for this is that we happen to live in a "very lucky" universe.  But if it is indeed luck, and we explain away every unlikely event (or, to phrase it another way, every event we don't like) as chance, then why in the world would we think any day-to-day events would conform to the common laws of probability?  Why not have extremely unlikely events occurring all the time?  No, the atheist only posits the weird stuff happening when it's convenient.  Furthermore, our own cognitive ability, as the product of blind chance, somehow has rationality and correspondence to reality.  This makes no philosophical sense.

As you can see, secularism definitely has not cornered the market on reason.  On the contrary, only on theism do reason, logic, and rationality exist.  For more on this topic, see my series of posts on logic and theism (here, here, and here) and on our free will decisions (here and here).

Fantastic Post at Dove Theology on the Resurrection

I just finished reading this great post on the resurrection from Dove Theology.  The blogger does not claim to prove the resurrection is true.  Rather, he is using standard scientific and mathematical tools (in particular, bayesian analysis) to show that, in principle, the resurrection is a valid conclusion if you have the right kind of historical data to draw inferences from.  His main point is that this is true whether or not you have theistic beliefs a priori.

Check it out.

My guest post on JW Wartick's site

I've written a guest post (for JW Wartick's site) on life on other planets. Please check it out!

On Jerry Coyne's free will stance, part 2

Before I go on, there are two things that I need to clarify from last time.  First, when I said that psychology and neuroscience were soft sciences, I wasn't dissing them.  I was just pointing out that these fields are not very quantitative.  This is not due to any deficiencies of psychologists or neuroscientists, it's just a fact of how complex these sciences are.  They are not as quantitative and well-defined as physics, which is well-described by a set of differential equations, and where the errorbars on measurements are very small, and where the agreement between quantitative measurements and mathematical models is high.  This is unheard of in biology, much less psychology and neuroscience.  So my point was how could any experiment in these fields of science disprove a long-standing law of logic?

Second, I realize now that I made it sound like Dr. Coyne's entire stance on free will is a result of these experiments on psychology and neuroscience.  Upon further reflection, I realize that is not necessarily the case. More likely, Dr. Coyne is simply an atheist, and believes that we do not have anything about us that is immaterial.  That is, we are our bodies, and we have no soul, no spirit, no "mind", etc., and thus have no free will.  According to this worldview, we are determined by our chemistry.  But now that we have these experimental results from psychology and neuroscience that Dr. Coyne is referring to, he believes this worldview has just been validated.  However, like I said before, these experiments are extremely unlikely to have validated a self-contradiction.

Which brings us back to the original question: exactly how is Dr. Coyne's stance on free will self-contradictory?

The short answer is that if no one has free will, then Dr. Coyne did not arrive at his own conclusion based on his choice.  His brain chemistry made him think we have no free will (and also made him an atheist).

The long answer is this.  If we really have no free will, and everything we do is determined by chemistry, then nothing I believe is actually based on fact or reason.  No decision I make, whether it is to accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and savior, or to eat a dark chocolate-covered peppermint Jo-Jo tonight for dessert, was based on reflection, careful thought, and reason.  So, this begs the question, did Dr. Coyne arrive at his stance on free will based on scientific evidence and his own reasoning, as he claims?

Ironically, if his worldview is correct, then no, he did not.  His brain chemistry simply dictated it.  In other words, he may be correct, but it's only because of luck.  Or perhaps, as the evolutionary biologist would have it, I just have the genes that make me believe in God, while Dr. Coyne has the genes to make him an atheist (that is of course a gross oversimplification of evolutionism's stance, but it works well enough for our discussion).

Of course, if this is true, that means that Dr. Coyne has zero evidence to back up his claim, even if he is right.  He can try all he wants, but maybe he's actually not being rational about the evidence.  Maybe he just has the brain chemistry that makes him believe that his evidence that we have no free will is rational.

This worldview then leads to a series of complete absurdities.  How can I sit here and try to convince you of anything, when what I am typing doesn't even have any meaning (because I did not arrive at my own thoughts rationally; they just came from physics)?

The big question this always leads us back to is, if belief in God is false, then why do so many people believe in a god of one form or another?  Why do so many people insist we have a spiritual component?  I've written on this before, but it bears repeating because it is so germane to this topic of free will and determinism.  The answer coming from the evolutionism camp is that at some point in the past, believing (falsely) in a god gave us some sort of fitness advantage (perhaps comforting us in our time of need?), and the fact that so many people still do today is simply a holdover from our evolutionary history.

This claim (besides having zero scientific evidence) is self-contradictory in the same way that Dr. Coyne's is.  If sometimes we have false beliefs because of evolution, how can we be sure that any of our beliefs are true? How can we trust any of our reasoning capabilities?  Maybe Dr. Coyne just got the genes that told him to be an atheistic evolutionist?

I propose that both of these (the argument from determinism and the argument from the evolutionary origin of belief in a god) are self-defeaters for naturalism.

On Jerry Coyne's free will stance, part 1

Since Dr. Coyne's article on free will appeared in USA today, I am sure many of people (Christian or otherwise) have written about it.  So naturally, I'll have to throw in my two cents about it.

In this article, Dr. Coyne argues that we do not have free will.  Because we are biological organisms, we are subject to the laws of physics, and thus everything that we do is pre-determined by our molecular make-up and the interactions that we have with the world around us.  We "chose" to eat dessert tonight because of some chemical reaction that occurred in our brain, not because it was really a choice that we made.

Dr. Coyne further grounds his point of view in the fields of psychology and neuroscience, saying that researchers are finding out that "the experience of will itself could be an illusion that evolution has given us". In other words, every time you make a choice, you just think you're making a choice. It is an illusion.

He goes on to talk about what the philosophical repercussions are for us, once we all realize that we do not have free will.  These repercussions include becoming kinder people, since we now know we cannot judge others (eg, criminals really had no choice but to commit those crimes), abandoning our Christian faith (since we really don't put our faith in Jesus Christ; we just had to do it because of our brain chemistry), and "realizing the great wonder and mystery of our evolved brains".

The astute reader will, at this point, realize that Dr. Coyne's stance on free will is entirely self-defeating. Meaning, if his position is correct, then it creates a contradiction within itself.  Or, to put it another way, if Dr. Coyne is right, he's right for the wrong reasons; he's only lucky, and he did not arrive at his conclusion based on his scientific or rational approach.

I promise to defend my statement in a later post, but for now let me just rant.  Dr. Coyne is a respected evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago.  He has a very popular blog called "why evolution is true" and is a prominent speaker and writer.  This is evident in the fact that one of his opinion articles can get published in the USA today.  So my two big questions are (1) why does such a brilliant, esteemed person not realize how philosophically bankrupt his position is, and (2) why does the USA today and other media outlets swallow (hook, line, and sinker as it were) the opinion of someone like Dr. Coyne in a field outside of his own expertise just because he is a professor at a prestigious university?

In regards to question 1, I find it very interesting that he even claims to be in touch with philosophy.  In his article, he says:

The debate about free will, long the purview of philosophers alone, has been given new life by scientists, especially neuroscientists studying how the brain works. And what they're finding supports the idea that free will is a complete illusion.

The issue of whether we have of free will is not an arcane academic debate about philosophy, but a critical question whose answer affects us in many ways: how we assign moral responsibility, how we punish criminals, how we feel about our religion, and, most important, how we see ourselves — as autonomous or automatons.

That just blows my mind.  In essence, he is saying that no matter what debates or critical thinking has happened in the past in philosophy, the incredibly non-quantitative and soft fields of psychology and neuroscience have proven that we don't have free will?  How in the world does a neuroscience experiment prove that logic doesn't work? What I mean is, if the conclusions of the neuroscientists are correct, then they are completely self-contradictory (as I stated above but have not defended; again, please be patient until next time).  Therefore, to adopt the stance that Dr. Coyne is, based on the results of these soft sciences, you must abandon the laws of logic (the very foundations of philosophy and all of reason for that matter)! Very curious indeed.

In regards to question 2, well, I guess this is just another case of what we've been seeing all over the place from the new atheist movement.  Richard Dawkins, with his non-sequitur arguments, Steven Hawking with his grand pronouncements about metaphysics, etc.  It's really difficult to go up against these giants who have very little argument to stand on, but who can completely change the minds of many just based on their credentials alone.  Credentials, I might add, that do not have anything to do with the subject on which they are speaking.  (Yes, I am a hypocrite.  I am not trained in logic or philosophy either.)

But it really just underscores something that has become more and more clear to me as I take a close look at the new atheist movement.  There is absolutely no substance to their arguments.  It is almost all -- to put it less-than-politely -- drivel.  (And by the way, I am not the only one to realize this.  Take a look here.)  Classical philosophers such as Hume and Kant were the real giants in their fields.  If you really want to argue against Christianity, take a look not at the bold pronouncements that biologists make about philosophy and theology, you need to look at the philosophers themselves!  (Again, a hypocrite am I, since I have not bothered to read these either.)

So, in my next post, I do promise to actually defend my take on Dr. Coyne's free will stance.

Views of logic: theism vs atheism part 3

In a previous post, I noted that while atheists claim that theists simply choose to "ignore" the laws of logic and physics when they choose, it's actually the other way around.  Unless you decide to suspend the laws of physics and logic when you wish, you must actually come to the conclusion that the universe had a Personal First Cause outside of space and time.

This was all in response to a comment by an atheist that I saw reposted on the pleaseconvinceme blog.  But there was something else about that post that got me riled up.  The original post said:

Theists imagine anything is possible simply because they have an imagination that can dream up anything they want. Atheists realize that isn't the case.

What I find especially interesting about that statement is that I am actually frustrated by this tactic coming from the atheist camp, not the theist camp.  This is especially obvious when you study the naturalistic theory of evolution as an explanation for everything.  For example, one of the issues I noted last time was with the charge from atheists that the belief in God that runs rampant within our species is simply a product of evolutionary history.  The thought is that, at a previous point in our species, the belief in a god or gods gave those believers some selective advantage.  So now, even though that's not necessarily giving anyone a selective reproductive advantage anymore, it's something that has been imprinted in our species from our evolutionary history.  That's actually become a working theory nowadays.  The problem is there is zero evidence of this.  It's an example of "as long as you can imagine it and it's consistent with naturalistic evolution, it's accepted as true".

Another example of this particular problem is where did our morals come from?  Well, clearly (since there is no god), our morals do not come from a transcendent source.  They must have been at one time given us an evolutionary advantage over the other humans who did not have those morals.  Nowadays, since we are a "social species", morals are in place in our genes so that we contribute to the greater good of our whole species.  The evidence for this is as abundant as for the above example.  That is to say, it is completely absent. But it's an explanation that is consistent with the naturalistic evolutionary paradigm, so it's taken as a given now that someone thought of it.

Of course, the most classic example of, "as long as I can imagine it, it must be true" is Darwin's "warm little pond".  In regards to theories of the origin of life, Darwin said in a famous letter to one of his colleagues that he could imagine a warm little pond where life got started.  This idea alone gave rise to the entire hypothesis of a prebiotic soup that was supposedly present on the early earth, from which life arose. It wasn't long before this idea, for which there was zero evidentiary support, became scientific dogma.  The idea of a prebiotic soup became so prevalent that nowadays everyone "knows" that's where life came from.  Very, very interesting how these things happen.

Methodological naturalism

I've posted in this blog several times on theistic evolution.  One of the (seemingly) interesting facts about those who hold a strong theistic evolutionary view is their commitment to a philosophical position called "methodological naturalism".

What's interesting is that's the common position held by atheists...so why should theists hold that same philosophical view?

Methodological naturalism basically says that science cannot ever make statements about God.  In fact, the only kind of conclusions that you are allowed to draw, as a scientist, are naturalistic ones.  You can never take evidence you see in the natural world, and from that evidence, conclude that something supernatual occurred.  It's not allowed.

An aside: The statement, "From science, the only conclusions you are allowed to draw are natural ones, and supernatural conclusions are disallowed," is not a scientific statement.  It is a philosophical statement.  Thus, if you are a scientist, this is something that comes from outside of science that informs you how you do science.  Nothing wrong with that, but it's something every scientist must acknowledge.

Back to the discussion of methodological naturalism.  If a theist, who believes in God, says that in science only naturalistic causes are allowed to be drawn as conclusions, then science is reduced from something that searches for truth (no matter where it lies) to something that is dominated by a particular philosophy, a particular worldview, that can force you to conclude something false about the universe.

Now, as a scientist, I am not just going around saying God did everything.  But I am also not going around saying that God could never be the answer.  If God did act in the world, then there could possibly be some evidence of that.  And it's entirely possible that the particular system that I am studying has been effected by that.  If I rule that out from the get-go, then I am effectively ruling out truth in favor of a philosophical (not scientific) position.  I am slanting my scientific conclusions by my philosophical presuppositions.

Where does this lead us?  This means that we should always be cautious and tentative when it comes to science, and that also includes being cautions and tentative when it comes to examining our presuppositions (i.e., our "baggage") that we bring to the table.

Views of logic: theism vs atheism part 2

In the previous post, I reposted on atheist's beef with debating Christians: we don't respect the laws of logic and physics.  His supports this statement by saying that, as soon as we're backed into a corner, and can't find a way out, we essentially say, "Well, we're talking about God, so He can transcend the laws of physics, so we don't have to worry about that."

In a way, I sympathize with him.  I am sure all too often, he has found Christians giving that answer in an unsatisfying way.  We should definitely take heed and avoid things like God-of-the-gaps arguments.  (Perhaps I'll talk about this later.)

But what really jumped out at me after reading this post is that it's actually not the Christian that should have a problem with the laws of logic and the laws of physics.  It's the atheist.  Here's why.

The atheist needs to acknowledge that his point of view has to account for the origin of the laws of physics and the laws of logic. In particular, the laws of logic, which are universal and abstract: how can entities with these features arise in a universe that is purely physical?

On the other hand, the Christian worldview explains these very nicely. The universe is coherent and rational because a coherent and rational mind created it. The order of the laws of logic flow from God's orderly character. The fathers of modern science were all Christians, and this is for a reason: others who didn't take the universe as having a rational foundation were not motivated to study the world rationally.

The argument can be further turned on its head. According to the atheistic worldview, where did this highly finely-tuned universe come from? The answer given is the multiverse, where an infinite number of universes also exist, and we just happen to be present in one of the rare universes that have such finely-tuned laws of physics and configurations of matter.

But if everything is just chance, and we can explain any rare event just by saying we "happen" to live in the universe where that rare event occurred, then there is zero reason to trust the rationality or predictability of anything. Why would such implausibly-rare events happen in the past, but now that we're observing the universe, we can suddenly count on the reliability of the laws of physics? It's actually the atheistic worldview that relies on the suspension of the laws of physics and logic when it becomes convenient.

The problem also exists for a purely naturalistic view of evolution. If everything about us can be explained purely by our (naturalistic) evolutionary history, then the belief in God that is rampant in our species is also a product of evolution. The atheist explains this by saying that false beliefs in god-like personas helped us survive in the past, and thus they are fixed in our species now. But if we are such a product of evolution that we can't even distinguish between false beliefs and true beliefs, how do we know that anything our minds produce is reliable?

The argument that theists have no respect for logic or the laws of physics, while atheists do, really doesn't stand up to much scrutiny.

Views of logic: theism vs atheism

I saw this post on the PleaseConvinceMe Blog and just had to comment on it.  The post is exploring the idea that theists don't respect the laws of logic or the laws of physics, while atheists do.  The person who wrote the original argument about this said that in debating with theists, any time an atheist would almost pin down the theist in a logically (or scientifically) indefensible position, the theist's reliance on miracles could get them a free out, as it were.  Thus, there's really no point in discussing these matters with theists because you can't even reason with them.

This may come as a surprise, but I actually like this argument, not because I think it's convincing, but because it provides a lot of interesting things for me to think about.  Here is a re-posting of the argument:

You see, in the [Roadrunner] cartoon, the central gag is that the laws of physics apply to the coyote, but not to the Roadrunner. The Roadrunner can step off a cliff, stand in midair, taunt the coyote, and then race across to the other side. If the coyote tries it, the laws of physics kick in and he's met with a long whistling fall and a dramatic splat at the bottom of the canyon.

So it is with theists and atheists. Theists live in their imaginations and have no respect of logic or the laws of the physical laws of the universe. The laws of physics are more like conveniences to them. When it servers their purpose they will quote them, but the minute they contradict what they believe, they happily toss logic and reason out the window. If the atheist raises a logical contradiction, or points out an impossibility according to the laws of physics, the theists shrugs their shoulders and says, "it's a miracle, God can do anything". They are not bound by the laws of physics within their own minds and imaginations and they've taken that to believe that neither is the rest of the universe.

There's no arguing with that. You can't have a logical debate with someone who has no respect for logic. Just when you think you have them pinned down and there's no logical way out of it, much like the Roadrunner, they toss logic and the laws of physics to the wind and ignore everything you said.

You can't have a debate if both sides can't agree to the ground rules. Theists imagine anything is possible simply because they have an imagination that can dream up anything they want. Atheists realize that isn't the case. But in most cases atheists haven't realized this fundamental flaw. They keep thinking that if they only try hard enough, if they only go back to the drawing board one more time, that they can design the perfect logical argument which the Roadrunner... I mean, theists... cannot escape.

I have a lot of answers to this, which I will post later.

Following up on Pascal's wager: the probability of God

Last time I sort of just asserted that "the probability the bible is true is actually very, very close to one."  What if this were true.  What if, when you consider all of the evidence, then the probability of the bible being true is really, really high?  In that case, as we go back to the question of Pascal's wager, not only do you have an infinite reward in this wager, but you have extremely good odds of that infinite reward existing.  Not exactly how the Vegas bookies would set things up, is it?


However, I never gave any sort of evidence for that assertion.  Unfortunately, that is the subject of this entire blog, and it would be very difficult to encompass in a single post, but I will try to list several reasons for this to be true.

1. The universe had a beginning.
2. The universe (the laws of physics and the overall make-up of the universe) is exquisitely designed.
3. The special set circumstances that must have occurred in order to produce a life-friendly planet was exquisitely finely-tuned (location and composition of the solar system, size of our moon, etc.).
4. The origin of life occurred in a geological instant.
5. The earliest life was incredibly complex.
6. The simplest life is incredibly complex.
7. The events that have taken place on this planet, in order for the planet to continue to be life-friendly for the past 4 billion years, have been exquisitely finely-tuned, (and must have taken planning).
8. The sequence of events that have taken place before the appearance of man seem designed for the benefit of man.
9. The timing of the formation of the solar system is finely-tuned.
10. The timing of the appearance of man is finely-tuned.
11. Our position in the history of the universe and our location within our universe provides us with the optimal conditions to study our universe.
12. The order and rationality of the universe demands an explanation beyond randomness.  How can these things emerge out of chaos?
13. The existence of immaterial, abstract, transcendent entities (including mathematics, logic, yes, even morality) demands an explanation beyond the material world.
14. The existence of the mind and free will demands an explanation beyond the Naturalistic Theory of Evolution.
15. The events recorded in Genesis 1 are almost perfectly consistent with the sequence of cosmological, geological, and biological events discerned from science. (Yes, I'm serious.)
16. The biblical record has never been adequately challenged from either a historical or archaeological standpoint.
17. The preponderance of fulfilled prophecy in the bible is remarkable.
18. The emergence of the apostolic church is only consistent with the bible accurately depicting the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

I'm sure there are more, but I believe this is enough.  In fact, if I ever get readers on my blog, you probably would fall asleep before getting through that list.  But, perhaps in the coming weeks I'll expand on some or all of these.  For now, suffice it to say that the case for Christianity is more than just based on faith.  It is a case built on the cumulative evidence from almost every academic discipline you can think of.  Sure, each argument can by itself be avoided, but in most cases, in order to deny any single argument, you must appeal to a small, ad hoc probabilities.  When taken together, I assert that you have to twist and turn so many times, the mountain of evidence in favor of the Christian view is so great, to deny it is a matter of volition, not rationality.  (Of course, I am certain many would disagree with me.  Hence, this blog.)

Pascal's Wager Part 3

Last time, I discussed the odds on Pascal's wager from a Vegas standpoint.  Because you stand to gain so much while risking so little, even if the odds on the bible being true are only moderately good, then that's a good bet to take!

However, the problem with this line of reasoning is that you are assuming people would take a bet that essentially requires them to alter their life.  In general, I think the economist would say this is not true.  Of course, I am not an economist, so I might be going out on a limb, but this makes sense to me.

With Pascal's wager, no matter how good the cost/benefit/odds/payoff analysis might be, you only get one shot. By the time the wager is over, you can't just dip back into your pool of money and ante up again.  This prospect sounds so unattractive, that most people won't be swayed by the cold reason that goes into this argument. 

Let me try to explain it in a different way.  Even though I originally said the risk was little, we're still talking about someone's life here. To the atheist, even the little risk of bending one's knee to God is too high, no matter what the payoff will be in the end. Most people can't or won't put a price on this. 

To make things worse, the atheist probably considers the prospect of spending eternity with God to be repugnant.  "Can't you just leave me alone, God, and let me live my life?" they say.  So the wager is asking the atheist to give up everything in order to potentially gain something they'd hate, and furthermore, on odds they think are remote.  Why in the world would the atheist take that bet?

So, the question then remains, can Pascal's Wager be redeemed? I think it can, but only in conjunction with other approaches.  First, we have to nail down what exactly is the probability that the bible is true?  As I described last time, even if this probability is as low as one in a million, from a strict cost/benefit analysis, that's a good bet; however, I argue that the probability the bible is true is actually very, very close to one.

Second, we have to convince the atheist that God is palatable, or at least the godly-lived life is palatable.  The atheist, who hates the idea of God, would never take that bet because of the reasons described above.  But what if you could convince the atheist that God is not a "cosmic bully" (as Dawkins I believe said), or that a godly-lived life is something worthy and satisfying?

Pascal's wager part 2

Pascal's wager is often misunderstood, because he never meant it to be taken on its own.  Last time, I mentioned that it's simply a cost-benefit analysis, and doesn't weigh in at all on actual evidence for Christianity.  But to boil the wager down really quick, if you believe in the God of the bible, you risk little (usually seen as a life lived "the way you want to") in order to gain an infinite amount (spending eternity in the presence of God).  If you don't believe in the God of the bible, you risk an infinite amount in order to gain little. But infinites are hard to imagine, so for the sake of argument, let's just say that it's not an infinite amount.  Let's say its a large amount, orders of magnitude more than the "little" that you might give up.  Now, if we're not talking about Christianity, would you take that bet?  Would you put money down on that line?

The way these sort of things work in Vegas, when you encounter a wager that would gain you much when you risk little, that wager is a long-shot.  The bookkeepers in Vegas make sure that type of wager is only possible when you face long odds.  For example, betting on the Cubs to win the World Series.  You can wager only a small amount on that, and if you are correct, you can get a big payoff, because it's such an unlikely occurrence.

Or betting on a horse that faces 1:1200 odds of winning the Kentucky Derby.  But that means if you put a dollar down on that horse, you stand to win a substantial amount if that horse actually won.

Another way to look at is winning the lottery on your first try.  You wager a buck, and get 8 million when you win.  

So, if the Vegas bookies were somehow in charge of such a wager, where you risk little to gain a lot, then you can surmise that wager would be so unlikely, it's not gonna happen.  Those kinds of payoffs only exist on bets whose odds are like winning the lottery.

You get my point.

So, back to Pascal's wager.  Again, let's not think about infinity, but only focus on the payoff being orders of magnitude larger than the risk.  If the odds that the bible is true are even, then that's a pretty good bet!  If the odds that the bible is true is one out of a hundred, that's a pretty good bet!  If the odds were even so low as to be one out of a million, that's still a pretty good bet!

Of course, most people don't think that way, and that's because there's a probabilistic (or maybe economic) fallacy buried somewhere in there.  We'll get to that next time.

Pascal's Wager

Blaise Pascal was a really, really smart mathematician and Christian philosopher.  One of the things he came up with was this "wager" regarding putting your faith in the God of the bible.

The wager goes like this.  Let's say you don't know whether the God of the bible exists or not.  But you do know that belief in him results in eternal reward, although it would also require you to sacrifice as well.  So you give up some things, like pursuit of pleasure, wealth, power, etc., in order to have an infinite payoff.  In this way of thinking about it, Pascal's Wager is just that: a wager.  What are you putting into your bet?  What do you stand to win if you hit the jackpot?  If someone asked you to take a bet like that, would you do it?

This is more like a cost-benefit analysis than an actual reason to believe in God.  I could say that you will inherit eternal reward if you believe in the "flying spaghetti monster," but you would have to sacrifice $100 dollars to the church of the flying spaghetti monster in an indulgence.  You give up little, and gain an infinite reward.  But that says nothing about my truth claim that this monster is real.

So it seems that this "wager" doesn't mean much all by itself.  So does it have any utility at all?  I think so, if you use it in conjunction with other arguments.  But first, we'll dig deeper into putting such a wager into a more every-day context.

Emerging from the days early fatherhood

As my son is now almost three months old, I am now starting to feel like a normal human being again.  Let me just say that being a parent is a wonderful thing.  The love and joy you have at seeing your little infant is great.  But, as I am an emotional guy, sometimes I get teary-eyed thinking about times when he'll grow up and get hurt, or be mean to someone.

I also think about passages in the bible where God declares that he is a jealous God.  These passages have been under much ridicule from atheists like Dawkins, who said, "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it."

When I think about these passages, and think about them in the context with which they are supposed to be read, they make perfect sense to me now.  It's funny that atheists malign and discredit the bible when taking it out of its context.  In order to judge a worldview, a religion, or just about anything, you really must judge it from within its own confines.  In particular, the context of God's claims to jealousy is embedded in terms of either a father-child relationship or a husband-wife relationship.  Since this post is about fatherhood, I'll focus on that one: God is like a loving father who has sacrificed greatly to raise his child.

In the context of this analogy, I think about my son growing up, when we're trying to raise him to teach him manners, discipline, etc.  Let's say we let him play video games, but limit the amount of time he can spend on them.  Let's also say that he has a friend, and whenever he goes over to his friend's house, his friend's parents let them spend as much time playing video games as they want.  How do my wife and I feel when our son comes home and says he loves his friends parents more than us, because they let him play video games for longer?  I'd be pretty jealous, and I'd also probably be pretty angry.  I'd probably think, "Don't you understand what we've done for you, son?  Don't you realize that our limiting your video-game-playing is for your own good?"  Of course I wouldn't say any of those things, or act out of my anger, but I would be both jealous and angry.

Evolutionary morals

OK, so maybe very few people really believe in moral relativism.  After all, you can get to some pretty crazy conclusions from it.  So what do the majority of people believe about morals?  Besides those that adopt an absolute moral system (ie, from Christianity and other possibly transcendent sources), many people nowadays will adopt something I call evolutionary morals (for lack of a better term).

Those that claim this point of view will often say that this belief system is different from complete moral relativism, in that their morals are grounded in an objective system: the greater good of humanity.

The belief system goes like this (I think).  Humans evolved as a societal species.  We make relationships with each other, and we make social contracts, etc.  These things were selected for as we evolved. Therefore, evolution has preserved in us a natural tendency to do things that promote the good of the human race as a whole.

In this way, morals develop.  There are things that are definitely bad for the human race, as a whole, such as killing another human without justification.  That's why murder is wrong in almost all societies.  In fact, any moral can be defined this way: as long as it's good for society as a whole, then it's morally right.  Anything that's bad for society is morally wrong.  Thus, an absolute standard exists.

If anyone out there can explain this point of view better, or if you have one that's similar to this but there are important differences, please speak up.

Moral relativism part 3: cultural relativism

The flavor of moral relativism that I was talking about fairly recently had to do with one's own view of morality.  In this view, you chose your own reality, and whatever seemed good to you was indeed good (as long as you didn't hurt someone or impinge on their rights).  I think that's entirely absurd, and I believe many people agree with me.

But what about the claim that our culture defines our morality?

Cultural moral relativism goes like this: whatever we define, as a culture, to be good or bad, that's what's good or bad.  Furthermore, this argument is usually supported by the realization that most things we consider to be bad, as as culture, are things that hurt (and do not benefit) society.  For example, murder is considered bad by society because it's such a detriment to society that we deem it bad.

So cultural moral relativism seems to work for most people.  But does it make sense?

If morality is simply cultural, and there is no absolute standard of morality, then we have no way of judging other cultures.  In other words, on matters where the morality of two cultures differ, who's to say our culture's view of morality is preferred?  If there is another culture out there that has decided that burning women on the funeral pyre of their dead husbands is ok, then who are we to say that's wrong?  If culture decides what's good and bad, then their culture has decided that burning women is good.

What do we do then?

Here's another major issue.  If culture decides what's good or bad, then what room is there for cultural reform?  When women did not have the right to vote, who's to say that's wrong?  Why should I choose to believe that women should have the right to vote if I live in a culture where they don't?  If I did, I would be choosing to believe in something that culture deems morally wrong.

In the 1960's, during the civil rights movement, who is to say that blacks should be treated better?  If culture had already decided that it is ok to treat blacks poorly, how could someone say that's wrong?  As long as that's the cultural view, then isn't that by definition what's good?

OK, one more question.  How is it decided what's accepted culturally?  Do we put it to a vote?  Sometimes, we do.  Take Proposition 8 for example, voted on in California back in 2008, on whether it would be legal for same sex couples to be married.  In that vote, Proposition 8 was upheld, albeit barely, making it illegal for same sex couples to be married.  I knew a lot of people that were outraged by the fact that Prop 8 passed.  But why?  Why should we be angry about that when, as a culture, we decided by majority vote that it is "wrong" for same sex couples to marry?

A loving God

OK, forget about Christianity for a second.  I just wanted to get a poll from people, so please let me know what your thoughts are on this question.  If there were a perfectly loving God, one who loved you like you were his only child, one who loved you more than you could ever imagine being loved, would he demand that you give yourself to him?