The Future of Religion
So, what is going to happen to religion in the future. Well, being an atheist, one may assume that I want to see everyone an atheist, nor true. While, it may be a nice idea for the whole world to be atheist, I would never want to see any legislation or laws banning religion, in fact, we as a society would lose something if we did. No, what I want is people to take their religious beliefs a little less seriously, a little less literal. Most, if not all dangers that religion poses, such as inciting terrorism, can be stopped by some rational thought and acceptance that ones chosen holy book is not the perfect, infallible word of their chosen god.
Take the example of terrorism, it is pretty obvious to any rational modern thinker that to kill someone because their religion beliefs don’t align with your own. Slavery, racism and sexism are 3 problems posed by the Christian belief and most main-stream Christians ignore these parts, I wouldn’t say they ignore these parts of the Bible, simply disagree with them as they know they live in a different society. It is the extremism that can result from religious beliefs which I have a problem with. However, these extremes have their days numbered, at least it would seem at first glance.
One current view is that religion is successfully reasserting itself in the world. America is practically a theocracy, with European countries just a little behind, the cold tips of shadows of the dark ages creeping up on us and atheism becomes more marginalised. I disagree with this view for two reasons. First, America is still tip-toeing the edge (Texas is a prime example of failure, but for each step backwards, somewhere else it is being dragged forward) and Europe is becoming more and more secular each day. Britain, a supposedly Christian nation is very tolerant of atheists and as much as the Daily Fail and Daily Torygraph will have you believe, it is actually not too bad. Most of Europe is already highly secular, though issues are still abound. Movement is towards acceptance of atheism, but also a polarisation of in the religious, between the extreme literalists and the mainstream rationalists.
Faith - No evidence required...
A C Grayling seems to argue the opposite, that religion is in it’s death throws, that the volume is simply being turned up by the extreme literalists, giving rise to the creationist movement in America and such. Yet argues that it’s death is soon. I also disagree with this view, I don’t think it is simply an increase in volume, momentum is being gained by the literalist camp, they may be gaining small victories, but the irreligious and mainstream are keeping them mostly in check. They may be getting some victories, but are still at large and will delay the death of the biblical literalist. Similarly, in the UK, we are still technically a Christian nation, while very tolerant of atheism and other religions, there is an increasing propensity towards stupid ideas like faith school support. With the current political climate favouring the Tory party (Our republican party, but not as right, yet still heavily favour a religious society), I think we may be seeing a resurgence in the future.
I would like to offer a more grounded view. With atheism becoming more and more acceptable in the West, we will hopefully see a shift towards reason. The mainstream theists really need to look at the extreme literalists and consider their view. There are plenty of rational Christians arguing against creationism, going as far as to argue that those Christians who promote it are damaging the reputation of their faith. I would agree.
Increasing exposure of extreme literalism, combined with globalisation, the internet (enabling the majority access to a wealth of information and knowledge never before available) and the new atheist movement and what you will see is the extreme literalists being sidelined. They will get loud and won’t go out without a fight, but they will eventually drop. Atheism will become acceptable, the idea of being good without god will spread and this will see the marginalisation of religious views. However, it may get worse before it gets better. Atheism will grow as an acceptable ‘world-view,’ and, hopefully, science will be put at the forefront again. The majority will still have religious beliefs, yet they will not be as important, they will not matter as much, like skin colour and gender discrimination, time will see it fade. Having said this, atheism will not grow rapidly for much longer, we are still in the ‘coming out,’ effect, so for another 3-5 years, we can’t say for sure how well spread atheism will become.
Take your pick, or don't. It's all up to you.
This is quite speculative, what may end up happening is the resurgence of the theistic extreme forcing their beliefs on society through government. This is a severe issue and will negatively effect the theistic and atheistic alike. As time passes, generations will become more polarised between atheism and extreme theism, instead of a shift to the more mainstream. We also have to consider foreign countries, especially the middle East and some far Eastern regions of the world. Islam is being dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century as Christianity was, despite the extreme problems we hear through the media, this is a small minority. The extreme literalist minority again. They will die out soon, at least I hope so, otherwise a shift to religious extremism will cause a similar reaction in the West.
The world which I want to see, in my life-time is one a lot of people will probably agree with me. A shift away from the literalist extreme side of things is necessary. For the world to develop further, globalisation to continue, societies merge and get along with each other, the extreme sides of all nations religions need to be dealt with. Religious beliefs should not be an issue, it should be a null one, such as skin colour (while there is still some intolerance, it is in the ultimate minority and will die out soon enough). If you believe in god, fine, if you don’t, that’s equally fine! But if you start to use these religious beliefs to threaten children (Hell), circumcise young girls (Basically cut teh clit off), promote ignorance (creationism), deny medical treatment to rely on prayer, oppress, hate or use to steal from well-meaning individuals and families, then your days are numbered.
Atheism is included here, the extreme, anti-theistic, calling religious individuals ‘moronic,’ and ‘dumb,’ is not going to get us anywhere, it will just cause furthur increases to the religious extreme. Debate, discussion and promoting understanding of atheism, secularism and humanism is essential to the future of society, at least in driving towards a more rational one. We all have to work together here, atheist and theist. Yes, criticise religious beliefs, but criticise the institution and the beliefs themselves, not the individual. Even I have been guilty of this, but sometimes creationists just really boil my blood as they parrot Hoving and Comfort.
Ask An Atheist Event
Well, today was the day when Warwick Atheists ran the event Ask An Atheist. A chance for anyone to come along and argue things, raise questions etc. on the subject of atheism. We had a small panel answering questions (though usually the audience jumped in occasionally to help answer questions or provide a dissenting opinion) which included yours truly. The questions were mostly asked by Christians, with a few atheists providing some, shall we say nicer questions. All in all, the event turned out to be a success (3 hours was simply not enough!), though there always seemed to be a few recurring themes that kept creeping back in, ones that require a much more in depth answer.
“Atheists have faith in the scientific method”
The event kicked off and we immediately got bogged down in a big steaming pile of philosophy, most of the audience couldn’t keep up, hell 1/3 of the panel couldn’t even keep up. The questions ranged from how we can accept the use of the scientific method, to what is logic and why do we use it. One Christian was arguing how the realms of science prevent and understanding of god and that we, as atheists have faith in the scientific method.
The scientific method is useful because in a world where there is an infinite number of beliefs, we need a method to separate the highly unlikely to the very likely. We need a method to distinguish what beliefs are in step with reality and which ones are not. Let’s take a look at the scientific method, it breaks down into 4 simple steps:
- OBSERVATION – We first of all observe the phenomenon and describe it clearly. We need to know what the hell we are looking at first, this has always presented a problem with some theists, they cannot and do not define what god is. How the hell could you form a belief on whether that thing exists or not without it being defined first?
- HYPOTHESIS – A hypothesis about the phenomenon is formed, this could be a causal connection, an equation or simply an educated guess. Then we perform tests to prove or disprove this hypothesis. If the results disagree, we abandon the hypothesis and go back to the beginning.
- PREDICTION – If the hypothesis is supported by evidence, it should mean that the theory can make predictions. For example, take the theory of gravity, if I drop something, it will fall towards the earth, unsurprisingly, it does. The hypothesis has a lot more going for it now. In terms of god, we get into problems here, we can’t make any predictions, in fact, we can’t even form a decent enough hypothesis to test and confirm it.
- REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS – Now that we have a hypothesis which has been proven to be right and can predict things, we need to be sure it can predict things by other people. This stage involves the testing of the theory by other individuals, I can predict that if I drop something, it will fall to the ground, anyone else can do that, as long as the conditions don’t change. Such as an even more massive object nearer the one being dropped. God has a real problem with allowing the reproducibility of results, take prayer for example, it is pretty damn unreliable.
“Ah!” but they say. God still cannot be explained by the scientific method, he lies outside the observable universe. Thus, you can’t reliably experiment on god! Then how the hell else am I supposed to tell what is true and what isn’t! Which beliefs are most conforming with reality and which ones are not! Personal experience would be a really poor way, I don’t want to find out that exposure to CO2 kills you by subjecting myself to the experiment.
Humans are curious creatures, we want to know how the world works. A scientific theory tries to do that. A theory can only be disproved, never proven. But we use what is the best we have at our disposal because it has been shown to work. To quote XKCD: “Science, it works Bitches!” Bring me a different way of looking at the world and trying to reliably understand it, science and the scientific method is the only option we have. Obviously, since science is the thing which disproves your belief, then of course, science is wrong and not your belief. Even though the whole point of science is to separate what beliefs fit in with reality and which don’t.
Yes, we need to assume the scientific method works, but it has proven itself to work time and time again. Yes, this means we’re using the scientific method to prove science, but it hasn’t failed and it is the best we got. It’s this or we use a 2000 year old, Bronze age book, which is proven time and time again to be false by science. The bigger question is, do you believe in science and everything it has brought us over the past 2000 years, or do you trust a book, where there are many others like it, which doesn’t try to correct itself, which isn’t in the business of caring what is truth, only in what makes people feel better. Stop being so damned scared, throw off your comfort blanket of faith and embrace truth. We should care about what truth really is, not what we wish it to be!
“The Bible is the Word of God”
This crept up fast, while it wasn’t the next topic raised for discussion, it was the next major point. I’m not going to sit here and discuss it for long and considering only Atheists and Christians showed up at the event, this was inevitable. All I’m saying is search for “absurdities in the Bible” and “contradictions in the Bible” in Google and you shall be rewarded with the answer. Some people took severe offence when I claimed that the Bible is many things, but the inerrant word of god is most certainly not one of them.
The Need of Moderation
After the event, there was concensous for the need of a fair moderator. Some people and topics did go on for too long, I tried my best to move the discussion on when we stalled, but that is pretty unfair considering my biased position as a member of the panel. Just something for us and anyone else planning a similar event to keep in mind, if the group was any larger, shouting arguments would have probably ensued.
All in all, the event was rather sucessfuly, we learned a lot and I did too. Atheists and theists really do seem to almost be working with different sets of axioms about the universe, this is a real barrier that needs to be overcome next time for any discussion to move smoothly forward. I loved being the panel, but it is a shame I didn’t get to bring out my depth of knowledge on debunking creationist crap, shame I was really pumped up for that.
Common Myths About Atheism – Part 2
Myth 2 – Atheists are inherently evil or immoral
This is a huge myth that is perpetrated for one reason, to make atheists seem like a bunch of horrible individuals. It is an ad hominem attack and nothing more, there is no rationale behind the argument or evidence which supports it. In fact the evidence supports the contrary.
Research by Cambridge University into correlations between organic atheism and various indicators of a countries development. The research essentially showed that a country with higher levels of organic atheism correlates with longer life expectancy, higher GDP per capita, lower poverty rates, stronger gender equality, lower crime rates, better education and better health services. If atheists truly were immoral or evil, the opposite should be true, in fact the results don’t speak well of theism. Countries with higher rates of religiosity are going to be worse off, with lower life expectancy, higher crime rates, higher divorce rates, higher prevalence of STD’s and higher teenage pregnancy rates.
Usually, these forms of arguments will usually claim that it is because of their holy book that society functions. The Christian right of America would claim that the Bible has helped to form the basis of American law. If this is what you believe, consider this. Why do other countries have similar laws to America, concerning rape and murder for example. A much more important question, why does countries like Japan, a distinctly non-Christian nation have similar laws. I assure you, America was not the first country to make these laws either, most of Europe and some far eastern nations had these laws in place well before America did. The Bible isn’t exactly a moral book to start with, I’ve already commented upon this, as have many others so I shant waste time here. Other holy books to have similar problems. Laws have been designed by people with morality and thought processes far above those who wrote any holy book.
It is important to distinguish organic and enforced atheism. Usually in countries under a dictatorship, such as Germany during the wars, Russia, North Korea etc. The state enforces atheism, usually by banning religion. Religion would be another institution which people can congregate under to overthrow the dictatorship. This is why they are banned and atheism is state enforced, it ensures that the government remains in power. Organic atheism is that which develops from people having the choice to be atheist, it is not enforced by the state.
In conclusion, there is no real point to defeat this argument beyond the point that it is an ad hominem attack. This would immediatly take it apart, but the fact of the matter is, nations with higher levels of organic atheism are pretty well off. Is this because of atheism, or is atheism enabled by the features of these countries. Personally, I would argue that both hold true to an extent, a country with higher health services and longer life expectancies can enable atheism as people do not fear death, the main card played by religion. But a country that is more secular will not give in to religious dogma and will do the right thing, such as treating women equaly and helping to lower STD and teen pregnancy rates.
Myth 3 – Evolution leads to Atheism
No, no it does not. You can be an atheist and not accept the theory of evolution, there is no set of rules that you need to follow to be an atheist. To be an atheist is to not believe in the existence of a god, that’s it. If you want to believe in evolution too, then go ahead. You can also believe in evolution and believe in god, in fact most Christians do believe in evolution, only the minority blindly accept literal creationism.
If you think evolution leads to atheism, then you are just wrong. All it means is that you just have to accept that your holy book is not a definitive account of history, some parts may be true, but others are simply ficticious. To accept evolution only requires ones self to evaluate the evidence, the amount of proof pretty much confirms evolution to be a fact in the same way as gravity is pretty much a fact.
Common Myths About Atheism – Part 1
This series will be looking at the common myths and misconceptions about atheism, some will be the tired old stuff trotted out, while others may surprise you. I, like many atheists, are getting tired of these misconceptions being spread, either by deception, lying or by simply not knowing any better. My aim of this series is to target the latter of the 3, those who don’t actually know the truth, yet believe what they have been told by the first two groups. So without further ado, let’s get going:
Myth 1 – It requires faith to be an atheist
First of all, let us define what a belief. A belief is something to be held true by an individual, regardless of whether it is true or not. This belief is backed up by evidence and reasoning. For example, you hold the belief that your car is parked in your driveway outside because that is where you left it and you remember locking it. It may not actually be there, it could have been stolen, but you believe it is there and will act on that belief (tomorrow, you will wake up and go outside expecting your car to be there so you can drive to work).
Faith on the other hand, is belief without evidence. You have faith something is true, but have no solid, substantial evidence to back-up your position (usually none at all). The argument usually follows that since you cannot prove or disprove the existence of god, it takes faith to believe that there is or is not one. At first glance, this may seem logical, but it does not take into account a sceptics view of the world and a positive claim.
To make a positive claim, is to claim something to be true in the manner that “there is a pattern,” or “there is a god.” It is to make the claim of something other than the null hypothesis and as a result of such, requires evidence to support the position. Taking a scientific viewpoint, you always hold a new hypothesis to be false until evidence can be delivered to prove the claim. A sceptical world view encompasses the idea of denying a new belief (the null hypothesis) until evidence is given to prove otherwise. Everyone is sceptical to an extent, your not going to automatically believe everything you are told, you will be sceptical on most things (perhaps not small common things, I could just say I own a cat and that isn’t such a bold claim as to require much more evidence than my word, but to claim I had a flying cat would require evidence before you believe it).
Faith - No evidence required...
This isn’t to say that sceptics are closed-minded, on the contrary, having a sceptical approach to anything is the safest and most logical way to approach new ideas and hypothesis. It prevents your mind from being filled up with beliefs that are not necessarily true and if you are like me, you want your beliefs to be based on fact and evidence as much as possible. Sceptics keep an open-mind, but will only accept a new idea when evidence is delivered, to be closed-minded would be to deny the new idea even when evidence is delivered or to not be willing to abandon a pre-existing belief when evidence is delivered that disproves or contradicts it.
So, to be sceptical about the existence of god is a safe, logical and scientific starting point to addressing the question, “is there a god?” It would be faith if there was tons of supporting evidence in the existence of a god, but all I have heard and seen are easily refuted or illogical. Atheists are open minded to the idea of god or the supernatural, but we will believe it when we see the evidence for it. This lack of evidence is why it is acceptable, logical and scientific to belief that there is no god. There is no faith about it, the evidence (or lack thereof) supports the conclusion that there is no god.
I suppose one could be critical and claim that since evidence is interpreted differently that you could conclude that there is or is not a god, but this doesn’t matter (it would simply mean neither side is a faith based position). Unless the evidence overwhelmingly supported the idea of a god existing, then atheism can never be considered a faith. It is however a belief, well technically a lack of belief, as to believe there is no god would require evidence and this is the difference between weak and strong atheism. Weak states there is no god because of a lack of evidence (a better name would be agnostic atheist) and strong would argue that there is evidence that points to there being no god.
Next week I will be looking into the myth that atheists are inherently evil:
OH GOD, LOOK AT IT, IT'S HIDEOUS!
(Endnote – Yes, I am aware that a myth can be true or false, a myth is just a story. My aim is to debunk the false myths about atheism and replace them with fact)
The Necessity of Secularism
As an atheist, you may think, or be mislead to think, that I want the whole world to turn atheist, for the idea of god to be obliterated from the face of the Earth. This is, of course, a lie. I do no care if you believe in god or not, what I do care about is the actions you take as a result of this belief. If religion was benign, then the atheist movement would probably not be as strong, if at all existence. The atheism movement is reactionary to the lack of reasoning in this world generated by strong belief in out-dated ideals and religious dogma.
As history will tell us, religion has never been a force of pure good. There is a long list of evil committed by people as a result of their unquestioning faith that is too long to list here. What I appeal for though is a more secular world. A world where action is based on reason, not foolish blind belief. To deny medical treatment to a child (as to pray instead), to circumcise/mutilate a young girl or to threaten a child with eternal damnation of hell is nothing more than plain child abuse, all generated from religious belief. Without this belief, a child would receive medical treatment which is proven to greatly increase the chances of recovery over prayer. Without this belief, young girls would not be mutilated as part of some ancient, dangerous and almost insane ritual. Without this belief a child can play happily with one another, knowing why something is wrong, not because of the threat of everlasting pain and rejection.
Secularism is a necessity in this day and age. Recent up-rises of religions attempting to reassert themselves in the western world has seen the rise the new atheist. Combine this with the atrocities brought to us from more eastern parts of the world and you have a recipe for disaster. The need for secularism across the world has never been stronger, with the ability to destroy entire countries at the push of a button, having people with power swayed by their religious beliefs threatens to destroy the Earth.
I ask for the total removal of religion from the government of a country. Religions need to accept that while people may or may not follow them, they have no part in interfering with the operations of a country. Who do you think is better educated to make decision for the country, well-educated politicians, or the priests and bishops?
Thanks to a continually globalising world, no developed country can really be defined by it’s religion now, especially those with an incredibly diverse populous. Who is to say that your religious beliefs should take priorities over someone else’s? In a nation with so many different cultures and beliefs, to place one above all others is unjust. A neutral position is one that is needed. One that applies logic and reasoning in an entire non-religious manner. I am not calling for all politicians to be atheists, but to fully understand that their religious beliefs have no place in the running of a country.
The USA, a nation supposedly founded on freedom condemms any man to never become president, or even a senator without the question of their faith coming into it. To declare that you are an atheist as a presidential candidate would basically spell the end of your campaign. The UK doesn’t seem to suffer from this problem too much being quite secular already, but being secular in an official capacity would be the next step towards true seperation of the state and church. Secularism is the next step required to furthur humanity, a bold statement, but one that will probably hold to be true as the world continues to globalise and map borders continue to fade.
Atheism IS the Default Position
Let us get one thing straight, atheism is the default position for anyone on issues of god. Remembering that atheist is 99.99% lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods. The other 0.01% is accounted for by a lack of complete information, until we know absolutely everything there is to know about the universe, we can never fully say there is 100% chance of no god (Russell’s Teapot). To be an atheist and claim that there is guaranteed 100% chance of no god shows ignorance to this fact.
A lot of theists will try and postulate that the default position is agnostic, this is not true. If I told you that there was a large 100ft dinosaur destroying New York, you would not sit there and claim that you are agnostic on the existence of the dinosaur. Assuming you are a rational person, you would know dinosaurs are extinct and for one to magically appear in New York to destroy it is ridiculously unlikely. You would seek evidence to support my claim or to disprove it, it is very unlikely that my word alone would convince you. You would try seeking information from a reputable source to support my claim, but until that moment you would remain in a state of disbelief. Since you cannot disprove the existence of the dinosaur either, we have the problem of incomplete information and you can only say with 99.99% certainty that there is no dinosaur wreaking havoc in down town New York. You are a dinosaur atheist.
If we transplant this situation to concerns about god, if I kept a child in a pure environment, where no mention of the word god or religion is exposed to the child. If we also, somehow gave the child a good education and still not educated her about god or any of the world views on god in a truly secular environment and wait for her to reach adulthood. Then, a stranger, someone with no credibility (so not a teacher of some kind or news reporter, just some random member of the public) and told her that there is this entity, called god, which created the universe, the planet Earth and the human race. She would seek evidence to support or refute this claim. She would not sit in the middle and be agnostic on the situation either, she would sit at 99.99% disbelief (because of the issue of incomplete information). Before this moment, she would have absolutely no idea about god and would be an atheist up to this moment, a 100% atheist to be exact. How can she be agnostic before even hearing about the concept or even the word ‘god’?
But this world does not exist, we live in a world where peoples views are distorted by those who surround them. Moving back to our example of the girl, one of the most important things to notice is her transformation from 100% atheist, due to a complete lack of knowledge in the very idea of a god, to a 99.99% atheist after being told of the idea by a stranger. Imagine if, instead of a stranger, we had a close relative, or a teacher or someone she respected and trusted said that there was a god. Would she still be a 99.99% atheist?
Short answer, no. The trusting bond between her and the person who told her would skew her views, it would make her think that there is a much greater chance of there being this entity called god, despite the lack of evidence presented to her. This is where the idea of avoiding indoctrination of children comes in. If a trustworthy person, such as her mother or father told her of this existence of god, she would almost take it as fact straight away, a result of evolutions programming of children to believe whatever their parents tell them. The position you take will be heavily influenced by the person who initially makes the claim. Moving back to the dinosaur example, what if a friend or a family member told you, you would not be an atheist (99.99%) on the claim likely believe that there was a dinosaur in New York.
So, I hope I have proven that atheism is the default position. The lack of belief is what causes this, since it is not belief that there is not god, it requires no thinking about the issue before hand, everyone is born an atheist. The same way that you do not automatically believe in the dinosaur existing, until evidence is presented. You will always 100% disbelieve in the existence of the dinosaur/god before you hear the claim and then will be at a point of 99.99% disbelief from there on in, until more evidence is provided and makes you belief that yes, this dinosaur/god is real.
How can you be agnostic about something you never even knew existed?
First Church of Atheism?
So, should we have a first church of atheism? No. Not at all, never, the egg atheism will get on its face would be ridiculous. Ignore these churches of freethinking or whatever, I completely disagree with them. What I do agree we should have is an institution which provides secular weddings, funerals and other ceremonies which may contain some spiritual significance.
The term church is something that needs to be avoided. The idea of a church immediately conjurers up the idea of belief and worship, 2 things that atheism does not have in common with. Atheism has no need or belief or worship. I would like to provide the idea that yes we do need a secular institution to perform certain ceremonies that are commonplace in our culture and society, but it must not be labelled a church. A new term is needed, a more accurate term, something which can give an accurate and defining name.
What this name should be, I do no know. All I know is that words like church need to be avoided in its title. The need for such an institution to deliver secular ceremonies is prevalent, there is demand for it. This demand needs to be met, there needs to be an organisation that provided the supply. However, the name much not include church or any other word which describes a place of worship (such as temple etc.)
SO please, for the sake of not creating confusion during this transitionary period, don’t create churches of atheism, or of freethought, or of secularism, or of humanism. All it will do is lead to confusion and provide amunition to the opponents of the atheistic movement.
Where Does Science Say That Everything Came From Nothing?
I’ve been browsing the web recently (a dangerous pastime, I know) and there seems to be a rather flawed consensus among the theistic that science states that the universe started from nothing and then suddenly everything happened in the event known as the big bang. As a result they jump on the absurdity that everything can’t come from nothing, either it breaks the second law of thermodynamics, or some other scientific reasoning. Yet again, we are dealing with the argument from ignorance.
So where did it all come from, this singularity which existed prior to the rapid expansion known as the Big Bang? Well, we are dealing with a lapse in science, it is very difficult, if not impossible to truly determine why there was a singularity where all matter and energy was concentrated suddenly appeared in the universe as we know it and then rapidly expanded. There is a gap in knowledge and trying to work out what actually happened is why we build massive particle colliders under countries.
“Ah hah!” I hear the theist cry. “So there is no explanation for the origin of the universe, thus something must have made the singularity that expanded into the universe as we know it. It must have been God. QED.”
Now we are dealing with the ‘god of the gaps,’ a seriously flawed piece of arguing. Simply stating that since science cannot explain that phenomenon, it MUST have been god. Since god is the only explanation we currently have. Well, I tell you what, humanity thought that not cracking open a human chest every 24 hours would stop the sun from rising and when we work out how the universe began, we will stop bringing god into it.
God is a deus ex machina. God is a machine god. A deus ex machina is a plot device used in plays or books which exists purely to tie up loose ends or discontinuities in the story by some outrageous event. It is usually the sign of a poor writer and generally marks a bad play or book. In some cases a literal god would come down onto the stage, for no reason other than to fix whatever problem is plaguing the play.
My point is, god, in this world, exists for the only reason of tying up loose ends, of answering the question science has yet to answer. A simple plot device used by humanity to cover the shortcomings of our understanding of the universe. No more is this shown then in answering the question of how the universe began.
Yet another piece of poor arguing exists too and that is the argument from false dichotomy. Since the big bang theory cannot answer how the universe began, it is wrong and the ONLY alternative is that god did it. This is a common fallacy, used a lot by creationists, especially in confrontation with evolutionists. Find something that evolution can’t answer and then propose that the whole theory is wrong and so god must be the solution as it is the only alternative. Even if the big bang theory was wrong, despite the overwhelming evidence for it, that doesn’t mean that god did it, for there are more than just the 2 theories for how the universe began. To attempt to dis-prove one and claim the other must be right by process of elimination is a common error, please stop making it.
Finally, the idea that the universe came from nothing is something of a mis-leading statement. While, the Big Bang Theory leads to the idea that everything came from a singularity which must have popped into existence from nothing, this is rather misleading. The Big Band saw the universe expand, the universe in which we occupy, we have no idea what lies outside it, what happened before it (since time only began at the big bang according to my understanding) and what is going to happen to it in the future.
As far as I can understand, there are many theories about the initial stages of the universe and the sheer challenge of proving these true or false through experimentation is incredibly difficult, practically impossible. Cosmogony attempts to explain how reality as we percieve it came into being, but being such an abstract science, the chance of understading what truly happened is not going to be discovered in our lifetime, or even in out childrens childrens childrens childrens childrens lifetime. But one day, with enough experiments, scientists and funding the answer will be discovered, it is only a matter of time.
Is Atheism A Religion?
Short answer, NO. Long answer…
Free will. Does it even matter?
Free will, a complex subject. But for me, a rather null subject. I’ve been perusing the internet and seem to get the impression that we atheists are seen as believing there is no free will. Usually, the argument is based on a materialism viewpoint in that since thought and activity in the brain is nothing more than reactions. Reactions that can happen in only one way, there must only be one future and so no free will. After all, how could anything be different? Otherwise reactions in chemicals must not be consistent and science would be wrong.
A rather insane argument, I know. It makes some dangerous assumptions, mainly about physics which I suggest you contact your local scientist about. However, lets just consider the issue of freewill and why it is important to be able to tell if we live in a universe with freewill or not (ultimately it doesn’t matter, but I will get to that soon). Let us focus on Christianity. According to Christianity (and other monotheistic religions) humans have been given the gift of free will. The ability to decide between actions, being good or bad, believing in god or not etc. If there was no free will in the universe then we would all believe in god as we have been given no choice. Thus it is vital that we live in a universe with free will. If not, how could there be a god as we have already been pre-programmed to believe in god or not.
So, how can we determine if we have free will or not. Well, guess what? It simply doesn’t matter.
If we have free will, we simply decide which action to take based on a series of inputs to our mind. Then a specific action will be performed on the basis of these inputs. You decide. But actually, this could be a lie. It could have already been determined which decision you would reach, how you would analyse the inputs and the action you would take as a result. Free will or not, the same action would be taken.
It can be rather difficult to put this idea in words. The idea of free will is a foolish concept to begin with. It is impossible to tell if you have free will or not. Imagine a computer, one you program that will perform a certain action when it receives a certain input. Now consider a computer that has been programmed to think for itself. AI if you will, which will perform a certain action with a certain input, if it so chooses too. But, this action could be predicted, the AI can be programmed the rules it will use to work out if it will take a certain action with a certain set of inputs. The free will the AI may seem is nothing more than an illusion, while it may seem to be making an active choice, the programmer has already predicted what outcome would have happened with a certain input.
My argument is difficult to get across and may be tough to understand, but while you may think you are making a conscious choice. You could have been programmed with the parameters to make such a choice to begin with. So your decision may not be the result of free will. Either way, the output would be the same, free will or not. That will change NOTHING in the long-run. What is important to understand is how people react to this fact.
Some people feel that since there is no free will, what will happen will happen that way and no other way. However, this decision could have been made from free will. The opposite is true too, you may feel that there is free will, but this could simply be the result of no free will in the first place and that you thinking this way is the way you were always going to. Again, freewill is a null issue, one with no impact regardless of answer. I could decide by what I think to be free will to give a doughnut to you and I could think this to be a result of free will. I could also give you the doughnut as a result of not having free will. The outcome is the same.
So, everyone, who cares if you have free will or not. What matters is the decisions you make in life, wether to be good or bad, follow right or wrong, is what is important. What you decide may be the result of free will or determined millions of years ago, either way the same decision will be reached.
