Apologetics: A Displacement of Faith

The simplified presentation of a straight forward theist: "I have faith in God."
The simplified presentation of an apologetic theist: "I have faith in something else that makes God a necessity."

Examples of "something else" include, but aren't limited to:

• A universe that could only be created by an external agency.
• Complex life that could only be intelligently designed.
• Objective and absolute moral values that exist in some way independent from those who value them.
• An external meaning for life/existence/them personally.

Apologetics isn't so much a defense of faith, just a displacement of it.

The Top Ten Ways to Tell That You’re Winning a Debate with an Apologist

10. The apologist projects qualities that apply to them onto you in hopes that it will equate all parties involved. They figure that they can’t lose the argument they are in fact losing because every one is relying on, say, faith. This ultimately ends the argument in a tie...if it were true, which it’s not.

9. Questions are worded as double or triple negatives in hopes that you agree to something that could easily be misread to mean the opposite. If you discover that you’ve made an error and correct it, the apologist labels you an inconsistent flip-flopper for the rest of your debate and/or life.

8. The apologist ignores common meanings of words and applies definitions that only other apologists accept as valid. They do this without telling you what their unorthodox definitions are until pressured. This method allows them to think atheists don’t know what we are talking about because, well, we don’t know what we are talking about. It's a breach of common vernacular in favor of coded, theological jargon.

7. The Gish Gallop tactic is used in which the apologist throws out as many different lines of argument or crack-pot studies as possible. This is an admission that they are unable to rationally discuss any one topic. It’s especially apparent after you ask them to contain the conversation to a particular set of ideas and they refuse.

6. The apologist, fully aware that you don’t believe in their holy book, quotes passages from their holy book.

5. When arguing in a public forum, the apologist responds to other people’s points but ignores yours. Chances are, this is because your points are the most difficult to address and therefore those with the least flaws to exploit.

4. The apologist plays dumb about the topic of debate when you explain how it might help your argument then suddenly becomes an expert when the same topic can possibly help their argument.

3. Instead of hashing out their own ideas and beliefs, they send links in the hopes that freshly Googled internet content can do the debating for them. (Protip: if an apologist hits you with a particularly well-worded argument, search a couple sentences in Google using quotation marks. I’ve found theists copy and pasting other people’s barely relevant arguments as their own. Talk about debating by syndication.)

2. The apologist gets defensive, flustered or angry. When ad hominems start flying from someone who normally preaches “turn the other cheek” you know that you’ve struck upon something unsettling to the apologist. Cognitive dissonance can be very frustrating.

1. You’re debating from a position founded on reality against someone who relies on assumptions of magic, the supernatural, and the divine.

Inconsistent Foundations

I wrote in my last post how a newly popular Christian apologetic argument is claiming that God is needed as a foundation for logic. I was trying to classify the argument and the best I could come up with is simply a bundle of talking points I’ll label the Foundation Arguments. What strikes me as particularly fallacious about each example of this type of reasoning is that they clearly don’t take into account the entirety of the deity they argue for. Let’s go over a few.

God is needed as a foundation for logic.

And yet God, as many Christians define him, is omnipotent, omniscient, and eternal--qualities that break logic in several different ways. Examples follow.

• An omnipotent God can’t both make a stone so heavy that he can’t lift and then lift said stone.
• An omniscient God can’t know what is it like to learn considering he has always known all, yet he must know what it is like to learn in order to know all. 
• An omnipotent God can, by definition, commit suicide; yet an eternal God, by definition, cannot die.

I've heard excuses for all these and they all suck. The closest a logical deity can get is mostly powerful (quasipotent?) and mostly knowledgeable (quasiscient?)

God is needed as a foundation for morality.

And yet God, as many Christians define him, violates his alleged good nature regularly in both their holy book and day-to-day life. The lives taken by Yahweh/Jehovah in the Torah/Bible include almost everyone on earth at one point. He is a vengeful, jealous being who allows for cruel and unusual punishment. Outside of myth, Christians must accept that God either causes or allows asymmetrical suffering for every form of life.

God is needed as a foundation for beauty.

And yet ugly things exist. If God is responsible for desirable aesthetics, he is also responsible for the undesirable. Reality isn’t all sunsets and kittens, we also have excrement and maggots.

The Alleged Divine Requirement of Math.

Is it just me or have apologetic arguments become more vague and confusing than ever before? I’ve been seeing the claim that atheism can’t account for the laws of logic and mathematics because they need a foundation in the divine. Upon asking the apologist why they think this is so, the responses vary. Most often they say something about logic and math working on faith because we can’t show why they work. In their minds, this makes atheists have faith in something thereby putting theists and atheists on equal ground. In their minds, it actually gives them a 1-up on atheists in that they can define a source for their faith...which just so happens to be what they have faith in, God--thus showing that their minds need more regular maintenance. This is where we can offer a tune-up.

Math works. I need no faith that math works, I can show that math works. This is evidential, which is right in the unfaithful’s wheelhouse. I don’t even know how to classify the argument that the apologist makes here. Asking why math works is like asking why are we here. It’s assuming a purpose that can only be prescribed by an outside agent--meaning it will only by compelling to those who already believe there is a god. In reality, there need not be a why.

If it’s not an argument of purpose, maybe it falls under the fine tuning umbrella. Are they saying that since the universe is comprehensible enough for us to discover math and logic, that God must have made it as such? If so, this can be dismissed as easily as other fine tuning arguments. We can only have a discussion about math and logic as we define them because they are meaningful; if they weren’t meaningful, we wouldn’t be having the discussion. It’s the anthropic principle at work. More than this, their line of reasoning is actually worse than the standard fine tuning argument of the universe. It’s at least conceivable that the universal constants that make life possible could be different yet aren’t, lending to the necessity of a designer or a multiverse or something to explain it. In the case of math and logic, I can’t see how anything could be fundamentally different. I don’t understand how can a concept like addition may be voided. Does the apologist really think a deity is needed for quantities to be countable? Seriously, what is the alternative? If things exist, said things can be counted. This gives us numbers which gives us math. Does this argument distill down to "why are there things?" If so, this brings us full circle to an assumed purpose.

These attempts to redefine faith as a property of atheism is simply an admission of their own weakness. Apologists, by definition, strive to defend their religious beliefs without relying on blind faith, but when it comes down to it, all their arguments are founded on just that blind faith. Apologists rationalize backwards in an effort to conceal their initial assumption, which is a passably convincing argument only to those indoctrinated to overlook the assumptions as such. I doubt apologetics were ever meant to convert the atheist, but rather to retain to lapsed church-goers. Who else would buy this shit?

Music Shmusic: Reason

If you can, please consider sponsoring me for Relay for Life. Thanks to those who have donated.

Don't Assume Your God is an Asshole

Pascal's Wager is a gamble for a favorable afterlife built on one wild assumptions after another. If you use this, you're assuming there is a God first and foremost. Then you assume there is an afterlife. Then you assume there are multiple versions of the afterlife. Then you assume that belief can dictate where you go in the afterlife. Whether your assumptions are correct or not is no big deal up to this point, but that all changes when you assume that you know the very specific nature of God and what he wants from you. If you're wrong, then you could be the one forfeiting heaven just as easily as anyone else--Christian, Muslim, Pagan, Atheist, whatever. In fact, by making the wager you are worshipping a false idol, a damning sin in most deities books. The end result of the wager is the same for everyone. You are guessing at something that, if you are wrong, could earn you hell. Opting out of the wager is the safest move to avoid the "having other God's before Him" scenario.

The only reason to make the Christian assumptions is to accept the authority of the bible, and, let's face it, if nonbelievers did that then there would be no need for Pascal's Wager in the first place. Turning the gamble on it's head by assuming God will reward atheism and punish theism suddenly puts believers at risk. Why would God reward atheism and punish theism? I could answer "mysterious ways" here and make my wager just as valid as the next apologetic argument, but if you think about it, it is consistent with our own nature. I don't want my kids to worship at my alter, I want them to think for themselves. If I was an absentee father I certainly wouldn't expect them or likely want them to the look for me. Since God shows no sign of his existence, at least to me, He is like an absentee father, but if theists want to assume He's a narcissistic asshole as well, I hope they are comfortable in their very real codependency with a very imaginary master.

Shave and a Faith Cut

Little known fact about Occam, he labeled his razors.

Mortality Week: Could God Kill Himself?

Could God create a stone so heavy even He couldn’t lift it? How does God know what it is like to learn if He has always known everything? These are just a couple examples of logic busting paradoxes that an idealized deity runs into. I’ve posed these questions to apologists who explain them away as illogical...but that’s kind of the point. If they think God can hold his omnipotent title while being confined by logic, fine. Thinking about mortality this week, I thought of a new question. Could God kill himself?

There is nothing illogical about this question. Suicide is something you or I can do fairly easily (although I don’t recommend you try.) I’ve reached out to a few high-profile apologists with this question. No answers. None. I’ve never gotten such a lack of feedback from these people.* I guess it’s because they know the repercussions of the question.

I’ve come to realize that I may never be able to convince a true believer that God is imaginary, but if this question can convince them that God is either mortal or less-than-omnipotent, I’m at least making some headway.

From my understanding, the biblically accurate answer is that yes, God could kill himself. We are made in his image, so anything we can do, he should be able to accomplish. A theist might argue that God can’t sin and suicide is a sin. To this I say that He clearly sins in the bible by wiping out masses of people on more than one occasion. The theist would then either have to grant me that God sins or take the stance that anything God does is inherently not a sin, which makes suicide not a sin if and when God commits it. This isn’t a question of whether God would commit suicide, it is a question if He could.

Any theists who would like to weight in on this, please do so in the comments or by email or on Twitter or by...carrier pigeon? Anything, just show me how I’m wrong. Until then, let’s just agree that your God ain’t what He used to be.

Upon further Googling, I realize that I'm not the first to ponder this question--even though I arrived at it organically. The only answers out there from the theist perspective I have already covered or fall under the "puny humans can't comprehend God" category. These same people then go on to explain all about God...paradoxes within paradoxes.

Pretty Fallacies

As a designer, I consume information best when it is laid out in a visually appealing fashion. As a debater, I try to stay logically consistent and intellectually honest. I found a couple of links to help me on both counts. Maybe they can help you too.

YourLogicalFallacyis.com displays logical fallacies in a mash-up illustration of philosophers and religion. The tag line of "Thou Shalt Not Commit Logical Fallacies" tells me the author knows that these errors in thinking often come up in debates regarding belief.

InformationIsBeautiful.net created an infographic of rhetorical fallacies. I love all the work on this site and even bought their infographic book, The Visual Miscellaneum. 

Both these visualizations are available to buy as prints. Y'know, if you need some nerdy wall art.