Hard God Questions

I'm starting a new project over at HardGodQuestions.com. If you like this, follow me over there.

Quit Your Whying

I’ve been listening to comedian Pete Holmes’ podcast You Made It Weird recently. A point of interest relevant to this blog is that Pete ends each episode with an exploration of his guest’s religious or atheistic beliefs. Most often his guest is a fellow comedian, a trade that fosters atheism almost as readily as scientific fields. Speaking of which, he’s had on scientists like Brian Green and Bill Nye as well as less scientifically literate types such as Deepak Chopra (that was a hard episode for me to get through even though it was about half the usual two hour length.) Pete himself is a lapsed fundamental Christian who still holds various spiritual beliefs while being sympathetic to the secular. I tell you all this to both encourage you to check out his show and to introduce a concept Pete often brings up--that science answers the “what”s and “how”s of the universe but offers little in terms of “why.”

The big “why”s were the last related questions I found of value as I left theism--most notably “why is there something rather than nothing?” Atheists don’t have a definitive answer to this and perhaps never will. Theists can answer it, but only with their go-to guess. They essentially answer “because God.” They then immediately stop asking questions, considering “because God” becomes more absurd when the question is “why is there God rather than no God?”

The only thing more frustrating than an empirical God of the Gaps argument is a philosophical God of the Gaps argument, which is what we have here. Pete is filling a gap with an assumption, as he has been conditioned to by his upbringing. While we should try to discover answers to every “why,” the problem with the question is that it eventually creates an unknown in any body of knowledge. When a “why” question is answered, a new “why” question applies. The result? A gap that keeps on giving. The better question may be this: with what degree of reductionism are you comfortable?

To illustrate this, here is another favorite comedian of mine, Louis CK, talking about kids.

Atheist Q & A

The Pre-Debate Questionnaire

I’ve logged in more debate hours than I care to mention here on the Internet, and what I’ve learn most is that theists are all unique little snowflakes. There are so many stories and scriptures available to adopt and then to adapt to fit one's own level of credulity, I can't assume anything about what any believer believes. This ignorance leads to debates going off the rails from general confusion and unavoidable straw men arguments.  If I don't know my opponents position, how can I possibly accurately represent it? So, from now on, I'll be using this short questionnaire to get the debate off on the right, if not awkward, foot.

Pre-debate Theist Questionnaire

1. What specific religion best represents you?
   Churches have split over dogma differences so often that the label of “Christian” doesn’t tell me enough. To know what you believe, I want to know with which faith you most identify.
2. What doctrine(s) of your religion do you not subscribe to, if any?
   To know you as an individual, I recognize that every belief of your adopted religion may not apply. If so, I want to know where you deviate from your faith.
3. Do you accept the Theory of Evolution?
   This comes up surprisingly often no matter which argument for God we discuss. Give me a heads up in advance if it’s even worth bringing up this aspect of science.
4. Do you believe in hell and/or the devil?
   I should be able to surmise this from questions 1 & 2, but if the answers are vague or something is forgotten, this answer will prove useful.
5. Do you see your holy book as entirely literal, entirely allegory, or some of both? If both, how do you determine the interpretation?
6. How would you describe your level of belief toward the God in question?
   Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
   De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
   Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.

I don't have a Pre-debate Atheist Questionnaire, seeing how we have less specifics to our atheism, but we should be able to answer the inverse of question six.

How would you describe your level of skepticism toward the God in question?

Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.

(I don't include pure agnostics because I don't see any reason why they would engage in a debate without a position to argue.)

The “God in question,” from above, is an important distinction from just “God” for the atheist. I would tackle an argument for a vaguely defined creator very differently than I would for claims that Yahweh specifically is real. In fact, my assessment of personal belief would also vary. I’m a de-facto atheist in regards to Vishnu, but agnostic towards a god defined only as an agent existing outside our universe.

Quora Question Round-Up #2

Why does it seem that certain atheists' understanding of Christianity is ironically similar to that of Christian fundamentalism?

Most atheists are aware of the different variations of Christianity. They focus on Christian fundamentalism because it is among the most damaging. This focus makes it seem like that's all atheists know of Christianity.

I, for one, will voice my arguments against the belief in God when asked, but see no need to voice it constantly. I don't see most people's belief in God as something that absolutely needs to be corrected, even though I think it is misled. However, for example, teaching creationism in school is just factually wrong, so I do speak out against that whenever possible.

If Jesus Christ came back to life what impact would it have?

I think it depends on where he comes back to life. In the USA, I imagine that he would be met with constant news coverage. If his miracles were continuously caught on film, a world-wide pilgrimage to see him would occur. The US would probably have to limit this influx of people, especially from the largely Christian population of bordering Mexico. The government might even restrict Jesus’ movements for this reason.

If this incredibly documented Jesus could not do miracles on camera because it would no longer require faith from his followers, he probably would not do miracles at all. (Meaning no one would need faith, they would have visual, witnessed proof.) In this case, he would be met with massive skepticism. Jesus would amass some followers, but would eventually lose the public eye. Once he lost the public eye, maybe he could perform miracles and thereby regain the public eye, only to once again not be caught on camera.

Jesus would make a stir either way. Once he eventually died, either by civilian assassination, government intervention or old age (if Jesus can die of old age,) whatever good he achieved would pass in time. New churches would pop up to challenge existing churches’ claim on him. Wars would be fought over where ever the new holy land has become. Atheism, Islam, and Judaism would massively decrease in size; Hindu, Buddhism and other belief systems as well, but not as much. Otherwise, things would go back to normal.

All this is assuming that he doesn't come back Revelations-style.

Which people or organizations stand to gain economically or in other secular ways if the American public becomes more religious?

Whatever company makes those eucharist wafers, cross manufacturers, and Republicans.

Quora Question Round-Up #1

I've answered a baker's dozen blog-appropriate questions posed on Quora, here are some...

I've heard some atheists use religious expressions during times of crisis. Why do they do this? Have any atheists on Quora ever done this? If so, can they explain why? Is it really true that "there are no atheists in foxholes"?

Mostly because it's in the vernacular. Atheists wouldn't invent such a saying, but since everyone else uses it, so do they.

Also, many atheists used to be believers, so they keep this saying out of habit.

NOTE: When I refer to God in any case, I am usually being sarcastic or using God as a synonym for the universe or nature. I especially do this when I don't want to get into a discussion about faith with a believer. I suspect other atheists do this too.

How do atheists find meaning in life?

I find meaning in life that same way I find meaning in anything, by assigning a purpose to it and fullfilling that purpose.

My purpose in life comes from my career and family. I try to live up to the ideals my wife, kids and company expect from me and (at least in my case) it is reciprocated in kind. This should result in a kind of equilibrium of happiness.

I figure this method of finding meaning in life is the same for the majority of religious people as well. I know it was the same for me when I belonged to a church. Religion does a better job of finding meaning in death, but atheists believe this meaning in death is an illusion.

Why do skeptics bash religions and supernatural claims so much but not everything else that isn't provable?

For the same reason virus and malware makers target Microsoft PCs over Apple machines--there are more of them.

Fewer people believe in ghosts, UFOs and far-out conspiracies, and those that do are less vocal about it. Most of the population believes in a god, so skeptics can affect the most people with their message by turning their attention to religion.