Demanding Evidence isn't Demanding at All

In a recent discussion I was told that some atheists stand in the corner and demand evidence with folded arms. I was told that we were afraid to really open our minds to the possibility of God because we were afraid of what we might find. I was led to believe that the person I was speaking with thought that my position of not being convinced had a deeper meaning to it than simply....not being convinced.

If only it were that simple. But the atheists desire for extraordinary claims to be backed up by proof is not outrageous, nor is it emotional. When I was a devout Christian, I believed that what I had been told was true. The fact remains that only a few questions needed to be asked in order for me to discover that the claims being made were entirely without evidence to back them up. On the other hand, if I asked a science teacher why evolution was true (something I did not believe at the time), I was provided with almost literal mountains of this thing called “proof”.

What do I mean by mountains? According to JSTOR, an online archive of over 1500 academic journals, there are over 795,000 papers on evolution on record. I've read a small number of these, after all, I'm only human. That's a lot of data. There are 31,000 pages of search results. Wow. Check out these titles:

Convergent Evolution of Perenniality in Rice and Sorghum

A Hierarchical Approach to Protein Molecular Evolution

Simulating Pseudogene Evolution in vitro: Determining the True Number of Mutations in a Lineage

Not that those are the most convincing papers, but they are papers. Part of almost 800,000 mutually supporting research pieces that fit one another to a T.

On the other side, provided by the creationist Center for Science and Culture, there are 50 peer-reviewed papers about Intelligent Design. I didn't read all 50, but the site offers a fantastic summary of each paper. (Honestly it's a great site.) What did I learn from these? That really really smart men don't understand things about evolution and published papers saying so. There isn't a presentation of evidence. There is a crossed-arm challenge that the evidence for evolution is lacking. Where have we heard this before? Here's an example of the 50:

• A.C. McIntosh, “Evidence of design in bird feathers and avian respiration,” International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics, Vol. 4(2):154–169 (2009).
  

“In this peer-reviewed paper, Leeds University professor Andy McIntosh argues that two systems vital to bird flight -- feathers and the avian respiratory system -- exhibit “irreducible complexity.” The paper describes these systems using the exact sort of definitions that Michael Behe uses to describe irreducible complexity.”

So basically they could have just replaced their paper with a picture of themselves shrugging.

But, this isn't about Evolution vs ID. This is about God vs no god. The one-sided debate between Evolution and ID is just a surrogate, but a good example.

Why do atheists want evidence? Because believers make some impressive claims. There is a God. He loves you. He can forgive your sins. He can provide everlasting life. He is in control. He created the universe. Those are claims that stake out a position and leave little wiggle room. The claim that God exists is a yes or no proposition. There isn't a grey area there. The claim that God created the universe is similarly true or false with nothing in between.

When presented with a claim like that in any other context, the natural reaction is to desire proof. If I told you I had found an abandoned treasure chest full of gold coins, and that I would share it with you...at some point you're going to want some of that gold in your own hands. Why? Because I made an extraordinary claim that you stand to directly benefit from. It's good news, in monetary form.

Well, we atheists want some of that evidence. So tell me why you think God is real. So tell me why he created the universe. Tell me how you know his son died for our sins, and while you're at it...explain how that actually makes sense. The problem that I come across is that believers can't do any of those things.

When I speak to Christian and Muslim friends of mine I always ask for proof. I hunger for proof. Evidence is my drug of choice. What do I get instead? Personal experience and sometimes some amazingly well-thought-out philosophy. But no evidence. Of course my arms are folded and I sound snubbed. You promised me Good News and can't back it up.

Invariably a Holy Book is brought up as evidence. Well, a clever meme I saw the other day pointed out accurately that the Holy Book in question is the Claim, not the Evidence. To put this in another light: Darwin's Origin of Species is not evidence. It is his claim about what he believed about the natural world. Those 795,000 peer-reviewed papers are about evidence, Origin is not.

And Holy Books are notoriously inaccurate. The Bible has too many versions and endless contradictions. The Documentary Hypothesis blows away the Old Testament and Dr. Bart Ehrman's research destroys the New Testament. Don't get me started on the Koran and it's documented 200 year oral history before somebody wrote it down... These are not historical documents.

To my theist friends: I love you. I appreciate your concern for my eternal soul. I am even grateful that you feel the need to pray for me. Please understand that my stance is not related to emotional trauma, a bad experience, a misunderstanding, denial or fear. I am unconvinced and will remain so until the theistic world has more to offer me about the greatest claims ever made by mankind.

The Hammer Falls

I'm writing in a slightly different format tonight. I'm sorry if this post appears harder to read than others in the past.

I am in a rather pleasant situation. I disagree with people who are smarter than I am. It could be arrogance that keeps me opposed to their viewpoints, but I certainly hope it is something more substantive than that. After all, I also happen to agree with many people who are smarter than me. In this case though, I am talking about my personal relationships and how much I enjoy them.

Two faithful intellectuals whom I respect read my last post and both agreed with the "majority" of it. Obviously we are on different sides of the fence as to the underlying issue, but we have drawn similar conclusions about some topics. I was immensely proud of myself over this. It is healthy to judge one's self by those whom you respect. But this brought up an unavoidable question. If we agree on A, B and C and right down the alphabet...why do we disagree on Z when we get to it?

I have no doubt that someday I will awaken to a message on my phone and after blinking my eyes clear enough to read it, I will experience the blow of a logical hammer. Of the men whom I mentioned in my previous post I know any of them could do such a thing. Having met one of their wives, and read the work of another, I know their spouses could deliver as well. It is my guilty admission that I await such a message.

Why? Because I desire evidence and logic and reason above all else. I thrive on intellectual challenge and the struggle of seeing things differently. We all should. The world would be a different, and perhaps better, place. Just a few thoughts. G'night.

Your Meaningless Faith

     I know of exactly three men whom I consider to be true believers. Matthew, Mark and John. I know, I'm one "Luke" away from a set of the Gospels. These men practice what they preach. They do their best, harm no one else and seek forgiveness if they do wrong. If there were three billion of them instead of just three, I would have no reason to write what follows. If you are one of these people, this is not directed at you. If you're not one of the aforementioned, grab a snack cause we're going on a long ride.

     Your faith is meaningless. In every possible way, your faith is empty, useless, vapid and hollow. This is not my opinion or assertion, it is yours. Don't blame me for being the messenger of news you desperately need to hear. That you don't know it already is not my fault. After all, you're the ones who told me that your faith was pathetic and stupid.

     In the months and years I have spent being a non-believer I have frequently had to defend my non-faith. For years, I did this with ease. No person of faith has ever presented an argument to me that I have needed more than twelve seconds to overcome to a point where I am comfortable. This might speak of my arrogance. It definitely speaks volumes to the absurdity of religious arguments.

     One of the more frequent ones is this: "Well yes, the Crusades and Inquisition and Taliban and suicide bombings and the murder of abortion doctors and witch hunts and human sacrifice and rape in the name of ethnic cleansing were all bad... But look at Stalin and Mao and Hitler! They did bad things too and they weren't religious. "

     Even if we include Hitler, who was a Catholic and had very close ties to the church throughout his regime, the base of this argument is that religious people have acted no worse than non-religious people. As a humanist, I'm not terribly surprised. Evil people do evil things, no matter their belief in an afterlife. But for the faithful to use this as some kind of defense is laughable. The religious put themselves on even footing with the monsters of history as though that cancels anything out. It makes their faith meaningless.

     But I hear it now: "Well, I'm not like that at all. I go to church every Sunday and I sing in the choir and I hate atheists and I have awesome morals because I'm one of God's children." Well you know something, no you're not. You're a twisted, selfish, self-centered, arrogant asshole, just like the rest of us. You aren't following the example of Christ to love your neighbors. If any of you fundie freaks did that, there wouldn't be a Republican party in this country.

     GAP, McDonalds, Ford, Exxon, Bank of America, Apple....these are the gods we worship with our actions. We love fattening food, fast cars, sexy clothes modeled on girls just barely able to be called adults, energy that is destroying the planet we live on and technology that makes it easier for us to be alone together. You vote with your wallet and your attention span. Both are getting smaller by the day and you don't even notice.

     Football players thank God for a great play. You thank God when a skilled team of doctors performs a difficult procedure they have trained their whole lives to do. Survivors thank God when they don't die in a car accident that would have killed them twenty years ago before advanced safety equipment was mandatory on vehicles. You defend God when non-believers question his existence or when you feel "oppressed" by not being able to freely spout your shit without challenge. When backed into a corner you threaten violence either through direct action or the divine retribution of your made-up sky fairy.

     You are hypocrites. You are aimless, spiteful, vengeful people who are wasting your limited existence wrapped up in a materialistic world and thinking that you have an ace to play at the end where you will be rewarded with paradise eternal.

     Your faith means nothing to you. At best it is an excuse for you to be who you truly are while you act on the hate you hold for others. You use your faith to draw lines in the sand and to seperate your brother humans into groups you can pretend you are better than. While your faith is clearly just a label to you, it means a lot to me as a humanist.

     The humanist knows better. We know that we are all related through a family tree that is more vast than we can grasp. We are all of one species making up a single tribe that should be able to love one another in the way your god has commanded you to. Those lines separating us, we didn't put them there. The humanist is trying to erase them. My label is all-inclusive. My "god" doesn't exclude you for having different thoughts. You are my brother or sister no matter what you believe because that is the fact of biological science, like it or not. As your brother, I'm asking you to please stop believing all the bullshit.

Hitching a Ride

As is no surprise, Christopher Hitchens died a few hours ago. I say no surprise, not because of the severe and aggressive cancer that he was diagnosed with. I say it was no surprise because we all will die. Still, reading about it while listening to one of his speeches didn't make it easier for me to take. In the news are the cold, black and white words. In my ears is his voice, somehow clearer and defiant, pushing back against death even after the battle is lost.

I loved Christopher Hitchens. He was a writer and orator of such might that his slightest efforts put to shame my greatest triumphs of wordplay. I am not secure enough in my manhood to admit that I wept at the news of his passing. He inspired me to actually follow through on the things I believed. He forced me to rethink my stern opposition to the Iraq war. He made me cringe when he would lay down a Hitchslap. I always felt sorry for his opponents.

I know there are a lot of people who are as sad as I am for his passing. I know there are many who will delight in the death of one of atheism's finest warriors. As much as I would like to either wallow in sorrow or rage against the hypocrites, I cannot. There is a Hitchens-shaped hole in the dialogue now. There is an empty chair at the debate. There is a voice missing from the discussion about what is good, what is beautiful, what is noble, what is pure and what is true. My own meager efforts may have to be multiplied a million times before that hole is filled. I will do my best and hope that a million more will as well.

Tonight we will drink for him. Tomorrow we will remember him. I hope that the day after that, we will all carry on the cause that he so cherished.

Suicide and Smiles

     First of all, nobody should take this post as a cry for help or a plea for attention. People get all icky about the subject of suicide and I don't want my dear readers to take this in anything other than the spirit it proclaims.

     When I was younger, I was very depressed. I considered suicide, for very very tiny amounts of time and not terribly seriously. A couple weeks ago I far more strongly thought about suicide because I was completely elated. I know. It didn't make any sense to me then and it doesn't really now. Hence, the rest of this piece might not make sense. I'll apologize in advance.

     It could be argued that I spend too much time thinking about things these days. It could be argued, and I'm not sure what side I would be on. In any case, weeks ago I was awestruck by the continuity of the universe. I am a shockingly small part of the universe, but I am quite literally made of the very same basic material as everything else. The time I spend here as a cohesive entity is a fraction of a fraction of all the time in the continuum. The component parts of me will persist for thousands, millions or even billions of years.

     I know. This is dangerously close to all that hippy "we are one with the universe" crap. And yet, it's so close to being true. We, and everything around us, are made of atoms that were born in the massive celestial forges of long-dead stars. Everything we know, love and hate are more similar than we could ever understand before the revelations of modern physics. From the Big Bang, to now, to the eventual thermal death of all activity in the universe in trillions of years, it was as though I could trace my very presence through time. (I told you this wouldn't make any sense)

     As a result, I felt as though a veil had been lifted. The particles that make me up at this moment were widely scattered before coming together for a few decades to be...me. Once I stop functioning as a human being, what makes me up will go on to make up other things, mainly worm crap at first....but still. While I have rarely been afraid to die (since I'm pretty sure I won't experience what it is like to be dead) after this thought I was positively eager to die. Once I do, the next natural step will be fulfilled and miniscule parts of me will continue on.

     So I smiled, comfortable at the thought of my own death. But the thought of suicide passed pretty quickly. As it turns out, I have all the time in the universe.

44 Answers for Christians

     I am writing this as a direct response to what I found to be a very curious list of questions located, ironically enough, on ChristianAnswers.net (which provides no answers). The original article is called "44 Questions for Skeptics" and can be located here: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aiia/questions-for-skeptics.html Overall, it really isn't a bad list of questions, if you're asking somebody who is already a Christian and needs to bolster their ideas. However, as I read through it I found many of the questions very easy to answer. So, here's what I came up with.

     1: How do you explain the high degree of design and order in the universe?

     A: This makes an assumption of "design" in the question. There is a lot of order in the universe, but there is also a striking amount of chaos. While I find the mechanisms of physics to be amazing in and of their own right, I don't see anything that doesn't appear to be a natural process.

     2: How do you account for the vast archaeological documentation of Biblical stories, places, and people?

     A: The reference of actual places in any story does not make the events that are said to take place there true. For example, in the movie Independence Day we see entire cities, like L.A. destroyed. These are actual places but offer no legitimacy to the fictional events.

     3: Since absolutely no Bible prophecy has ever failed (and there are hundreds), how can one realistically remain unconvinced that the Bible is of Divine origin?

     A: The Biblical prophecies of the Old Testament were numerous, to say the least. But the explanation for their fulfillment in the New Testament is found in the New Testament itself. Matthew 21:4 says "This took place to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet ". Now, I am not a scholar, but a man doing things in order to fulfill a prophecy is not at all miraculous or unusual to me.

As for the birth of Christ, none of his disciples were present and therefore cannot be trusted as eyewitnesses to the events that are alleged to have happened. I do not believe in the unusual circumstances of Christ's birth any more than I do those of Kim Il Sung of North Korea, who's birth was announced by birds speaking in human tongues.

     4: How can anyone doubt the reliability of Scripture considering the number and proximity to originals of its many copied manuscripts?

     A: This I thought was an odd question. ChristianAnswers.net cites the Dead Sea Scrolls as evidence for the reliability of early texts. Having read the translations that have been made available I was stunned. There are different versions of the book of James, for example. There were many Gnostic Gospels discovered with the Dead Sea Scrolls, and certainly these are now considered inspired by their reasoning.

     5: Are you able to live consistently with your present worldview?

     A: No. One's choice of how to live is influenced by their experiences. Over time our worldview changes, as does our lifestyle.

     6: Wouldn't it make better sense, even pragmatically, to live as though the God of the Bible does exist than as though He doesn't?

     A: This question clearly has nothing to do with the accuracy of the Bible either way. It seems to be an argument to cover your bases, so to speak. In my opinion it clearly would not be better to live my life as though God were real if I don't believe he does. As we saw in a recent case involving an evangelical church in London that was advising members with HIV that they would be cured through Christ and to stop taking their medication. 6 people died as a result. Clearly it would have been better for them to not trust in God.

     7: In what sense was Jesus a 'Good Man' if He was lying in His claim to be God?

     A: Here is an assumption that Jesus may have been lying by making his claims combined with an assumption that he was "good". Frankly, I don't think Jesus was a "good man" at all, but it is easily possible that he was simply wrong if he was not intentionally misleading his followers.

     8: Do you think that Jesus was misguided in affirming the truthfulness of Scripture, i.e. John 10:35, Matthew 24, Luke 24:44?

     A: Yes.

     9: If the Bible is not true, why is it so universally regarded as the 'Good Book'?

     A: The Bible is not universally accepted as the Good Book. A minority of the world's population believe it is true.Also, I should ask, which Bible? Browse a Christian book store sometime and point out the one true word of God to me, ok?

     10: From whence comes humanity's universal moral sense?

     A: Humanity does not have a universal moral sense. See this post for more information:

http://devoutapostate.blogspot.com/2011/11/moral-compass-is-broken.html

     11: If man is nothing but the random arrangement of molecules, what motivates you to care and to live honorably in the world?

     A: This displays a blatant misunderstanding of what humanity is. Nobody has ever claimed that humans are a result of anything random. Richard Dawkins addresses this very clearly in the God Delusion and you should read it for yourself as I can't do it justice. In summary, our sense of caring about one another and responsibility are a result of our evolution and need to care for one another in family groups. And as should go without saying, we do not all behave honorably.

     12: Explain how personality could have ever evolved from the impersonal, or how order could have ever resulted from chaos.

     A: This is an extension of question 11 so I won't address personality. The question of order relates back to question 1 and is equally repetitive.

     13: If Jesus' resurrection was faked, why would twelve intelligent men (Jesus' disciples) have died for what they knew to be a lie?

     A: Not to put too fine a point on it, but 12 men did not die for what they knew to be a lie. At the minimum, Judas wasn't executed for it seeing as he killed himself before the resurrection. The other 11's fates are not at all clear since it would not have been possible for them to document their own executions. If they are documented, it should lend some doubt to the validity of the story, should it not?

     To give a modern example: the followers of David Koresh believe he was the Christ, attest to miracles and believe he his still alive despite his shotgun-shell-riddled skull being found in his burned compound. The survivors of the Waco event are going to spend life in prison for what they believe to be true even though we know it is not.

     14: How do you explain the fact that a single, relatively uneducated and virtually untraveled man, dead at age 33, radically changed lives and society to this day?

     A: It could easily be argued that Jesus did very little to change lives and society. His followers and the religious governmental institutions that grew to power in the centuries after his death can be credited with changing, or ending, many lives.

     15: Why have so many of history's greatest thinkers been believers? Have you ever wondered why thousands of intelligent scientists, living and dead, have been men and women of great faith?

     A: It should be noted that for much of history, to not be a "believer" was a death sentence. Even persons who made great claims of faith were brutally persecuted for offering scientific explanations that the church did not approve of. Professing belief was a matter of survival and was done by the educated and the uneducated alike.

     16: Isn't it somewhat arrogant to suggest that countless churches and people (including men like Abraham Lincoln) are all radically in error in their view of the Bible?

     A: Isn't it somewhat arrogant to suggest that countless people should not question what they are told from the pulpit? Only by examining claims of truth do we ever discover those things that are accurate.

     17: How do you account for the origin of life considering the irreducible complexity of its essential components?

     A: Irreducible Complexity has never been demonstrated. Professor Behe, the primary warrior for this line of argument, has consistently failed to actually provide an example that biologists have not been able to refute.See also my post on this: http://devoutapostate.blogspot.com/2012/05/demanding-evidence-isnt-demanding-at.html

     18: How can the Second Law of Thermodynamics be reconciled with progressive, naturalistic evolutionary theory?

     A: The 2^nd Law is frequently misunderstood by creationists. The Law applies to "closed" systems and does not apply to Earth, a system that is powered by the sun.

     19: Why does the Bible alone, of all of the world's 'holy' books, contain such detailed prophecies of future events?

     A: I assume the questioner is referring to the book of Revelation. If that's detailed, well, we're playing a totally different game here.

     20: On what basis can the Bible (interpreted as per historic Christian orthodoxy) be challenged as a sole, final truth-standard

     A: I suppose if you interpret the Bible from a Christian point of view in order to challenge the Bible, you're not going to get very far. However, the circular logic here should be obvious.

     21: Is it absolutely true that "truth is not absolute" or only relatively true that "all things are relative?"

     A: That's a clever word game, but not an actual question. Besides, we talked about this in Question 10.

     22: Is it possible that your unbelief in God is actually an unwillingness to submit to Him?

     A: This type of question implies that a non-believer is actually a rebellious believer. In order for us to make any real headway in a talk like this it must be understood that non-believers honestly don't believe. Really people. We're just not convinced. So.. basically the answer to this question is no.

     23: Does your present worldview provide you with an adequate sense of meaning and purpose?

     A: Yes. (I should note here how the religious attempt to use questions like this to prey on those who are lost, depressed or otherwise needing more in their lives)

     24: How do you explain the radically changed lives of so many Christian believers down through history?

     A: As I mentioned before, this still wouldn't speak to the accuracy of theistic belief. But in considering the lives changed of those who believed it might be wise to consider the lives destroyed of those who didn't believe or who believed the wrong thing. I don't deny that Christianity has changed lives. But so has Islam, Yoga and the Food Network.

     25: Are you aware that every alleged Bible contradiction has been answered in an intelligible and credible manner?

     A: Well, that's not true. In 1992 Jim Meritt did a better job than I can explaining why. Have at it. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

     26: What do you say about the hundreds of scholarly books that carefully document the veracity and reliability of the Bible?

     A: ChristianAnswers.net didn't cite what any of these books are so this is difficult to refute. I would direct you to books like God is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens and A History of God by Karen Armstrong that I feel do an excellent job of proving the Bible and all monotheisms wrong (though Karen appears to wish it were true).

     27: Why and how has the Bible survived and even flourished in spite of centuries of worldwide attempts to destroy and ban its message?

     A: I admit an ignorance to what is being referred to here. The history I am familiar with is of a powerful Christian church banning the message of the Bible even among its own people. People were executed for even owning a Bible in their common language. So I guess if Christians were trying to keep Christians from hearing the message of the Bible, this question should be referred back to the questioner.

     28: Why isn't it absurd to try to speak or even conceive of a non-existent 'God' when an existing God would, by definition, be greater?

     A: I can only assume that this is a reference of St. Anselm of Canterbury's ontological argument. I grant that a real God would be pretty awesome, but that does not make the conception of a non-existent God absurd. I can imagine a great many things that do not exist. Because I am able to imagine them does not make them real.

     29: Have you ever considered the fact that Christianity is the only religion whose leader is said to have risen from the dead?

     A: This would make for a curious argument if it were true. As I noted before, David Koresh's followers believed he rose from the dead. Here's a list of other religious figures that followers believed had died and risen from the dead: Osiris, Baal, Adonis, Melqart, Dumuzi, Eshmun, Asclepius/Achilles, Aristeas of Proconnesus, Castor, Heracles, Alcmene, Melicertes, Krishna, Romulus, Zoroaster and Horus.

     30: How do you explain the empty tomb of Jesus in light of all the evidence that has now proven essentially irrefutable for twenty centuries?

     A: I admit, this one stumped me for a while. The main reason was that I couldn't find all this "evidence" that they were talking about. CSI: Israel reruns are notoriously rare. What they really mean is "assertions" not "evidence".

     31: If Jesus did not actually die and rise from the dead, how could He (in His condition) have circumvented all of the security measures in place at His tomb?

     A: If Jesus' "condition" was being dead, then he could not. And I don't think he did.

     32: If the authorities stole Jesus' body, why? Why would they have perpetrated the very scenario that they most wanted to prevent?

     A: I don't see why the authorities would have to steal Jesus' body when they were already in possession of it, so this makes little sense. If one is wondering why there was an apparently empty tomb, I am far more likely to question if there was an empty tomb at all.

     33: If Jesus merely resuscitated in the tomb, how did He deal with the Roman guard posted just outside its entrance?

     A: Sorry, but he was dead. And so is Elvis. Let it go.

     34: How can one realistically discount the testimony of over 500 witnesses to a living Jesus following His crucifixion.

     A: If all 500 of those witnesses had left testimony, that would be one thing, but they did not. To the contrary, one person wrote down that 500 people witnessed something. If the single source is unreliable then what it claims is irrelevant.

     35: If all of Jesus' claims to be God were the result of His own self-delusion, why didn't He evidence lunacy in any other areas of His life?

     A: He did. His own family said so and surprisingly enough, these statements were left in the Bible. John 7:5 and Mark 3:20-21.

     36: If God is unchanging, wouldn't it be true that one who changes by suddenly “realizing” that he/she is “God” therefore isn't God?

     A: Agreed. Jesus wasn't God.

     37: Is your unbelief in a perfect God possibly the result of a bad experience with an imperfect Church or a misunderstanding of the facts, and therefore an unfair rejection of God Himself

     A: Similar to Question 22. We honestly don't believe it. Please stop looking for some bizarre psychological reasoning.

     38: How did 35-40 men, spanning 1500 years and living on three separate continents, ever manage to author one unified message, i.e. the Bible?

     A: Similar to question 3. Give me a couple thousand years to edit a book and I can make it pretty unified too.

     39: Would you charge the Declaration of Independence with error in affirming that "all men are endowed by their Creator..."?

     A: Yes, but this is a case of metaphor.

     40: Because life origins are not observable, verifiable, or falsifiable, how does historical 'science' amount to anything more than just another faith system?

     A: This is a blatant demonstration of a misunderstanding of science. While the very origin of life is not observable, verifiable, or falsifiable, science does not make claims as to what that origin was. Biological science is exploring many options but is unafraid of saying "I don't know". It is exactly the opposite of a faith system.

     41: What do you make of all the anthropological studies indicating that even the most remote tribes show some sort of theological awareness?

     A: Unless the questioner wishes to impart theological accuracy on other cultures, this is a straw man argument. All cultures use religion and mythology to explain the world around them.

     42: Why subscribe to the incredible odds that the tilt and position of our planet relative to the sun are merely coincidental?

     A: Seeing as there are hundreds of billions of stars making up each of hundreds of billions of galaxies I don't see why this is an issue. There were a lot of chances for a planet to sit in the zone of orbit that Earth does. Lots of planets are tilted. So?

     43: If every effect has a cause, and if God Himself is the universe (i.e. is one with the universe, as some non-Christians suggest), what or who then caused the universe?

     A: Again, this would imply accuracy to a non-Christian religion and I'm not positive the questioner wants to do that. But, I'll bite. If God is the universe and the universe needs a cause then God needs a cause, so the question falls back to the questioner. I have addressed this issue here though if you wish to read something in more detail: http://devoutapostate.blogspot.com/2011/11/creation-revisited.html

     44: What would be required to persuade you to become a believer?

     A: An act of God.

     Whew, so that's all done with. Now, to cap it all off, ChristianAnswers.net adds this at the bottom of the page:

     "A college student attended a philosophy class which held a discussion about God's existence. The professor presented the following logic: “Has anyone in this class ever heard God?” No one spoke. “Has anyone in this class ever touched God?” Again, no one spoke. “Has anyone in this class ever seen God?” When no one spoke for the third time, he said, “Then there is no God.”

One student thought for a second and then asked for permission to reply. Curious to hear this bold student's response, the professor agreed. The student stood up and asked the following: “Has anyone in this class ever heard our professor's brain?” Silence. “Has anyone in this class ever touched our professor's brain?” Absolute silence. “Has anyone in this class ever seen our professor's brain?” When no one in the class dared to speak, the student concluded, “Then, according to our professor's logic, it must be true that our professor has no brain!”
The student received an 'A' in the class."



     Clearly this is yet another invented story that attempts to prove a point, but does so poorly. If we really really doubted the existence of a brain, we could crack open the student's skull and find one. Or not

Creation Revisited

These days I spend a lot of time in discussion with friends and foes who are theists. The vast majority are Christians, likely because I live in Kansas and religious diversity here means you're either Pentecostal or Baptist. I also thrive on websites like AnswersInGenesis that I have mentioned before. Many arguments for a young earth or for creation are pretty obviously based on poor assumptions or bad science, but those are not what I would like to talk about today.
I am not a scientist by any stretch of the imagination. At best I have a very basic understanding of how science works. To put this in perspective, I have a basic understanding of how my car works. I can do simple repairs and even diagnose some issues that come up. Ask me to build you a car and I would do well just to draw a picture of one. However, I don't need to know all there is to know about the design and production of a vehicle in order to hold an informed opinion on it. The same is true of science and the origins of the universe.
However, I am much more comfortable approaching the subject of Creation from a philosophical standpoint. So hang in there, because I'm not sure any of this will make sense.
Something cannot come from nothing: Creationists claim the universe must have had a creator because it could not have come into being without one. Now, we know the universe exists, mainly becuase we're here to experience it, anthropic principal and all. The best science we have can't tell us with certainty how the universe began, or honestly that it "began" at all. What came before the Big Bang is a mystery and one that an honest person has no evidence to fill in.
The universe also apprears to be rather complex. Alright...mind-bendingly complex. Like, way more complex than I can really wrap my head around. I think we can all agree on that. Except for that Hawking asshole. I swear if he wasn't in a wheelchair, I'd kick his ass for being so smart. Then again....he might be able to kill me with his mind.
Sorry. Anyway, so this vast, impossibly complex and spectacular universe exists and nobody can honestly say how or why. Creationists will say that God simply willed everything into being. Even if I am willing to allow that (and in no way am I willing to do so), how does that make more sense? God, by definition, must be even more complex than the universe in order to create it. And he must exist on some level in order to be present before anything else was so that he could create.
My point is this: Why does it seem so easy for creationists to postulate an all-powerful creator who doesn't need a reason for his existence over a natural, but as-yet-unknown reason for the universe's existence?
We know, without doubt, that the universe exists. So however unlikey it might be, here we are, existing in it. We do not know that God exists. (Even the strongest believer admits that faith is not knowledge). To me, taking that extra step seems unnecessary and unwarranted.