I’ll review The Shack later, but I did have a look at the two sites.  Sadly, the everystudent link is pretty weak in the strength of its arguments.  Being the easiest to critique, I thought I’d offer some responses here.

But first consider this. If a person opposes even the possibility of there being a God, then any evidence can be rationalized or explained away. It is like if someone refuses to believe that people have walked on the moon, then no amount of information is going to change their thinking. Photographs of astronauts walking on the moon, interviews with the astronauts, moon rocks…all the evidence would be worthless, because the person has already concluded that people cannot go to the moon.

A bit of a cheating, to begin with.  The author asks us to accept the premise right from the beginning.  It’s as if she realises that her arguments lack strength from the beginning.  In philosophy, the greatest burden of proof is on the person making the most ontologically positive statement.  Let me borrow an example from Wikipedia:

The reasoning for this argument should be fairly obvious.  It’s far easier to prove than an apple exists in the fruit bowl (all you have to do is present 1 apple), than it is to prove that there are no apples in the fruit bowl (you need to present all the fruit in the bowl and eliminate each as “not an apple”).

In the case, the ontologically positive statement is that “god exists.”  Marilyn would have us begin on the same side of the fence with “God possibly exists,” rather than the opposite position.

1. Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.

Not really.  This is another version of the famous watchmaker analogy.  If you find a watch lying on the ground, you naturally assume (because of the complexity of the device) that it was created by a watchmaker, not came together of its own accord.  Thus, the argument goes that because human beings and our planet are vastly more complex than a watch, there must be a creator to have created it.

As other have pointed out, this doesn’t answer the question; it only moves it back a level.  If we know from the sheer complexity of humans that there must be a creator, then god must be more complex than we are – so who created god?

There more to that argument on their page, but I’ll save the response to that, because the godandscience.org link presents a much stronger argument for this in the first place.

2. Does God exist? The universe had a start – what caused it?

Marilyn’s main argument here is “The universe has not always existed. It had a start…what caused that? Scientists have no explanation for the sudden explosion of light and matter.”  This is poorly argued.  Just because science does not have an answer (I would add “yet” here, since we are currently studying this), does not mean that god did it.

3. Does God exist? The universe operates by uniform laws of nature. Why does it?

Here, Marilyn goes into an argument from wishful thinking.  “How is it that we can identify laws of nature that never change? Why is the universe so orderly, so reliable?”  She doesn’t present an answer; we are to naturally come to the same conclusion she did.  Me, I’d rather go looking to see if I can find out why it’s so orderly and reliable.

4. Does God exist? The DNA code informs, programs a cell’s behavior.

Back to the watchmaker analogy.  See my response to point 1 above.

5. Does God exist? We know God exists because he pursues us. He is constantly initiating and seeking for us to come to him.

Now we move into an argument from wishful thinking, and a failure of logic.  We know that god exists because he’s pursuing us?  Pursuit pre-supposes existence.  You know what?  First establish existence, then you can go into pursuit.  Her argument here that that because we focus so much on it, that’s proof that it exists.  Preposterous.

You know why we focus on it?  Because it affects us in negative ways.  Because we have people in America standing in the way of things like gay marriage, based on their understandings of religious doctrine.  Because we have paedophilic priests who use the institutions of church and religion of cover up and escape from justice.  Because we have things like women who have been raped who are then tried for the crime of being raped and are stoned to death under religious law.  Great evil is done in the name of religion.  If it were all sweetness and light, then I wouldn’t care about it.

6. Does God exist? Unlike any other revelation of God, Jesus Christ is the clearest, most specific picture of God revealing himself to us.

Okay, here we go.  Firstly, there is no proof that a person named Jesus ever existed.  Most of the stories about him can also be found attributed to other deific figures in other religions.  Look at Krishna, from Hinduism:

• Jesus and Krishna were called both a God and the Son of God.
• Both was sent from heaven to earth in the form of a man.
• Both were called Savior, and the second person of the Trinity.
• Krishna’s adoptive human father was a carpenter.
• A spirit or ghost was their actual father.
• Krishna and Jesus were of royal descent.
• Both were visited at birth by wise men and shepherds, guided by a star.
• Angels in both cases issued a warning that the local dictator planned to kill the baby and had issued a decree for his assassination. The parents fled. Mary and Joseph stayed in Muturea; Krishna’s parents stayed in Mathura.
• Both Jesus and Krishna withdrew to the wilderness as adults, and fasted.
• Both were identified as “the seed of the woman bruising the serpent’s head.”
• Jesus was called “the lion of the tribe of Judah.” Krishna was called “the lion of the tribe of Saki.”
• Both claimed: “I am the Resurrection.”
• Both referred to themselves having existed before their birth on earth.
• Both were “without sin.”
• Both were god-men: being considered both human and divine.
• They were both considered omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.
• Both performed many miracles, including the healing of disease. One of the first miracles that both performed was to make a leper whole. Each cured “all manner of diseases.”
• Both cast out indwelling demons, and raised the dead.
• Both selected disciples to spread his teachings.
• Both were meek, and merciful. Both were criticized for associating with sinners.
• Both encountered a Gentile woman at a well.
• Both celebrated a last supper. Both forgave his enemies.
• Both descended into Hell, and were resurrected. Many people witnessed their ascensions into heaven.

Given that Krishna was reportedly born around 3200ish BCE, and Jesus is traced to well, 1 CE, and that the early Christians were known to steal from other religions to spread their own (look up December 25 and the Roman Holiday Saturnalia), and it’s far more reasonable to say that details from Krishna’s life were attributed to Jesus rather than the other way around.

In a nutshell, it asks the question: how can heaven be heaven if we know our loved ones are in hell?  There’s a lot of supposition and guesswork in there – hell, it’s ALL guesswork when it comes to the supposed afterlife, but it’s a piece designed to make you think, and it did that for me.

Link: http://www.smh.com.au/world/childtrafficking-accused-claim-innocence-as-trial-awaits-20100202-n97o.html

Where have we seen this before?  Have we learned nothing from history?  Isn’t this pretty much the same thing that happened with the missionaries of the Age of Discovery?  What about the Stolen Generation?

There’s an inherent sense of superiority I see in here that irks me.  I don’t know why.  Could it be a case of simple lack of forethought?  Even if the parents of these children had died in the quake (which is disputed quite strongly, if you read the article), surely they had extended family.  They’d certainly be better off with grandparents, uncles, even cousins than with a random family full of people they don’t know.

So is this sinister, or very very badly misguided?  I don’t know.  Make up your own mind.  Just think very carefully and do your homework before giving money to relief funds.  Doing research on the funds is harder than just giving and hoping for the best, but honestly, if they deserve your money, don’t you think they deserve as much attention as well?

Another part of the thrust of her question was “Why do you have to raise this issue? How have you been disadvantaged by being an atheist?” Keep in mind, dear reader, that I live in Australia, which is nowhere nearly so dominated by religion-in-politics (a very deadly combination). Coming from the United States as I do, I argued that even if religion wasn’t front-and-centre in the political scene, it must be one of the silent ever-present factors determining which politicians actually get elected. In this, I was happy to be shown wrong. Bob Hawke, Prime Minister of Australia from 1983 to 1991, was an agnostic. Bill Hayden, Governor-general from 1989 to 1996, was an atheist (although in my defense, the G-G is not popularly elected, but appointed by the PM, meaning that in this case, the atheist was appointed by the agnostic).

So why then, did I feel the need to make such a big deal about atheism? It would be easy to dismiss this as a “shut up, that’s why” argument — designed to do nothing but stop the discussion there — but E- isn’t the kind of person to make those arguments. I think her question was more one of trying to understand where I’m coming from and so it warranted further thought.

The question germinated in the back of my head all week long, and I turned my motivations over in my head, examining them from all angles. I read, and thought, and read some more. Why did I care so much about atheism and religion, when it had so little immediate effect on my life?

I’ve come up with a few answers:

It does have an immediate effect in my life. Particularly when it comes to familial relationships. My family are all devout Southern Baptists (except my brother, who rebelled and became a Presbyterian). They have no knowledge of my atheism (although my brother may have a clue, and has said he’s deeply concerned), and they probably still think of me as Christian. This isn’t a huge deal, since they remain state-side, but it’s a deception, and it means that when we do talk, it has to be about non-religious topics. When you consider the fact that I’m a liberal and my family are conservatives, it doesn’t leave us with much to talk about.

E-’s parents definitely think of me as a Christian, and here the impact is much more immediate. Instead of being 26,112 km (according to google maps, who prefer kayaks to aeroplanes) away, E’s parents live a whole 3 km away. We see them on a regular basis, and this includes a bunch of their religious functions — they are largely social events, but the Christian trappings make me feel uncomfortable. At Easter, the traditional greeting is “Christ is risen,” to which you are expected to respond “Truly he is risen.” I cannot, because that would be an affirmation of something I do not believe.

I know for a fact that if I “came out” to them as an atheist, it would strain relationships all around — between them and me, and E would be caught in the middle as they’d approach her about me. That’s not something I’m willing to do, so my little charade continues for now.

But it’s going to come out one day. I will not lie to my children about my beliefs. And they will probably ask around about the same time that they start going to scripture classes (another post on this for another time). Once they ask, it will almost certainly come out somehow.

It’s late here, so I’ll post some of my other thoughts on the matter tomorrow.

To make this part brief, I can be described as an atheist — I believe that the only definition of god that fits is “the Universe as god.” If it has a consciousness, it’s so far beyond our comprehension and we are so far beneath its notice as to make the question of religion moot. It’s not going to intercede on your behalf, and you certainly don’t pray to it. Any afterlife (as part of the universe) will not be in any form that we recognise or imagine now. E has described herself to me as a Christian — her faith is personal, while her membership in her church is social.

One of the comments I made was something along the lines of “atheism now is where homosexuals were a few years ago.” E’s reply was “That’s ridiculous; no one’s getting beaten to death because they’re an atheist.” And she’s right. That wasn’t where my main argument meant to go. But I think my comment is also right; it just needed clarification.

And it’s here, in Greta Christina’s article 10 Myths and Truths About Atheists that I found the same argument, only worded much better than I could put it. It neatly sums up what I meant:

6. Atheists are just being trendy.

Yes, atheism is everywhere now. In bookstores, on the news, in the blogosphere. Just like gay people were in the early ’90s. African Americans in the late ’50s. Women in the early ’70s. There’s a point in any major social movement when it reaches critical mass. It gathers adherents and sympathizers, who become more visible and vocal … a process that’s self-perpetuating.

The movement picks up steam. It can no longer be ignored. At which point the mass media has a collective “WTF?” freakout. Who are these atheists (gays, African Americans, women), and where did they come from all of a sudden? Like we haven’t been here all along.

Does that make atheism trivial? A fad, something people do to be cool? Of course not. No more than being queer is. Coming out as atheist is often a big deal. It can mean losing friends, being cut off from family. It can mean getting threatened by neighbors or kicked out of school, losing job opportunities or custody of your kids. And it often means a major upheaval in how you see yourself and your life. People don’t do this to be trendy. People do it to be true to themselves.

The rest of the article can be read here: http://www.alternet.org/story/126118/10_myths_and_truths_about_atheists_/?page=entire
Greta Christina’s blog can be found here: http://gretachristina.typepad.com/

Posted 2007 June 01:

I’m having a “crisis” of faith. It’s not really a crisis (as my death is far from impending, as far as I can tell), but that’s the popular terminology.

Now I’ve had this crisis for the last several years, but I’ve only just now been able to kind of boil it down to some core principles.

First, some background info… I was born into a Christian family, and raised in a Southern Baptist church — I’d say it was a liberal southern Baptist church, but the truth is that I never saw that put to any sort of test. I have absolutely no problem with any of the people in that church. They were all great role models, and morally upright people. Great parents, and supportive people all. I had no reason to challenge my faith back then.

So when my wife met me, I was still quite happily Christian, and devoutly but not antagonistically so.

We met, fell in love, I moved to Australia, and we got married. I ended up not attending any church for a long time. Was this a catalytic event? I have no idea. I don’t even know if it factors or not, but there it is.

The more I looked at the world, the more I started to see religion used to justify all sorts of evil. Hell, it’s been happening for centuries. The Crusades, the long-lasting conflict between Israel and Palestine, the modern-day terrorist attacks — these are all religiously motivated. When questioned, these people all use the religious texts of their flavour to justify their actions.

In a less extreme example, most of these religions encourage social intolerance by mandating that the practitioners’ of the faith go out and convert others to the same faith. When the world was being explored, missionaries went with the explorers to bring civilisation (meaning religion) to the savages, showing an assumption of superiority (these people must be converted) — and great evils were done. Look at the Stolen Generation as one example. Pushing our beliefs on other people is still done today. Look at the debate over creationism vs evolutionism. Creationists are demanding to have their religious beliefs taught alongside something which is demonstrably provable, and I think that’s wrong. Believe what you like, but don’t you dare tell me what to believe.

Another thing that’s also bothered me: Christian recruiting (or testimony, if you must). Every day I walk past a church sign on the way to the train station (actually, I walk past two churches, but one of them has a sign), and every week they have one or two new pithy sayings: “Jesus didn’t save himself so that he could save you,” and “It’s a shame Aussies don’t love the son as much as they love the sun,” and “If Jesus scored 100 wickets would you worship him then?” are some examples. While the above are not good examples for my following argument, many of these sayings seem to focus around fear: “Accept Christ, follow Christianity, or burn in hell for eternity.” In fact, now I remember one…

You could leave salvation to the last minute… if you knew when that was going to be.

And “evangelising” like that is nothing more than preying on people’s fear of the unknown.

So right from the beginning of my questioning, I found myself completely turned off any form of organised religion. I was content to describe myself at that point as a “generic, non-church-going, not denominational Christian.” But I couldn’t help but look further.

Now there’s no denying that the Bible (and I’m assuming the Qur’an and the Torah as well) were written by men. If you seriously believe that it is the literal word of god, then I think you have something wrong with your head. There’s been entirely too much messing about by people to even begin to seriously think that. Look at the events of the Council of Trent for one example.

So the Bible (and assumedly the other religion texts which form the basis of the Abrahamic religions: Christianity, Islam, and Judaism) was written and edited by men. It was and it still used quite easily to justify so much that is clearly evil.

And it occurred to me: if it’s written in a way that people can use to justify their actions now, perhaps it was written THEN to justify another set of actions. After all human motivation and actions haven’t changed all that much in the last 2000 years, let alone the last 500 years (Council of Trent again). Look at the early parts of the Bible to see just how gruesome some of the early “righteous” were: there’s gang rape (Judges 19:20-29) and incest sanctioned by the righteous (2 Samuel 13), and ethnic cleansing sanctioned by god directly (Joshua 6:16-21, Joshua 8, and Joshua 10:28-41).

And when I started to look at the Bible again, this time asking myself what benefit could the author of this book (individual chapters of the Bible) have for writing what they did.

For much of the New Testament, this is obvious. Paul, through his letters, stood to gain (and has gained) much influence over the infant religion by influencing these early churches.

As for the gospels… I’m satisfied that a person named Jesus existed and said the things he said. As for his divinity there’s still a question mark… why were the other gospels not included in the Bible at the Council of Trent? What was in them, and who stood to benefit by their exclusion?

I’m not advocating conspiracy here… but I am thinking critically, and it’s led me to doubt many things.

Thanks for listening.

Edited to add: I’m not swearing myself to be an atheist here. I’ve been an avowed Christian for more than 2/3 of my life, and that’s not something shed lightly. I know I’m not satisfied with the dogma any more, and so I’m looking for my own answers. If you’ve found yours, more power to you… so long as you don’t try to force your answers on me.