The Subjective Scope of the Natural

God, or any sufficiently powerful supernatural entity (if such a being exists), could have designed us to operate miraculously. We could see through pores in our skin, hear via golden halos, and float from place to place--all without any mechanism for how our bodies function. Instead we have a naturally comprehensible biology of which we have a deep understanding. Why would God make us, and all organisms, in such a way when he could have just as easily made magic-powered life?

I wonder why God, if he exists, would make the workings of anything subject to human discovery. I say anything, but really it could be everything. We have yet to find something that science is fundamentally incapable of explaining. Before the apologists chime in, yes, I realize there are aspects of nature we have yet to understand, but that doesn’t show that they are fundamentally beyond natural understanding. Take something like human consciousness. We knew next to nothing about it in the recent past, but now we know of neurons and synapses. We know roughly where in the brain is most important for memory and cognition. We know how chemicals affect thoughts, perception and personality. It seems everything is within our ability to grasp.

I know that these questions I pose may be unanswerable. I don’t expect the believer to know God’s motivation for making things how they are, even if God exists. Mysterious ways and all that. But consider this, believers: since everything that God created, if he did, seemingly operates by an intelligible natural process, why reject evolution by natural selection as the process responsible for the diversity and apparent design of life? If the evidence supports it, and it does, denying it outright because it isn't miraculous is a bizarre exception considering all the things you accept that are not magical. Evolution happens and the process is unguided by any external agency--embrace this knowledge or ask yourself why God would make this one aspect of reality supernatural. Or ask God. If he answers, let me know.

Short-form Thoughts

SFT #1: On Mental Illness & Climate Change.

I find a less recognized way in which religion harms society is in how it encourages many theists to deny the negative effects of mental illness and climate change. Because the existence of these things imply that, if there is an agency behind everything, that agency doesn't have our best interests in mind, they refuse to consider that they are real. This denial delays or thwarts the prospect of working on and potentially fixing issues that inhibit individuals' well-being and threaten our lives.

SFT #2: Disbelief in Magic

Theists often misunderstand why I disbelieve the bible. Let me be clear--it's because of the talking animals, duplicating seafood, parting seas, magic plagues, transforming matter, and resurrections. There are other valid reasons to be skeptical, but reasons 1 thru 100 are all the violations of common experience and observation that are not naturally possible. The same reasons that theists, hopefully, would doubt a tagline like "based on a true story" for Lord of the Rings.

SFT #3: Seeing Through Most Any Apologetic Argument

How I see religious apologetic arguments:

Formation 1.
Make an assumption that can only be true if God is real.
Use that assumption to say God is real.

Formation 2.
Find something with an incomplete explanation.
Substitute with a complete explanation based on the assumption that only God can be responsible.
Use that assumption to say God is real.

(In both cases, it would burn less calories to just assume God is real.)

Gods that Thwart Traditional Arguments for God

It's possible that religious apologists could be wrong about their arguments even if a handful of supernatural beings exist. Here are a few examples (that are obviously just me having a bit of fun, I'm not actually arguing any are real.)

Lacsap is a hipster God who ironically only grants those who don’t believe eternal life. Inversely, Lacsapians and all other religious types are met with an afterlife of everlasting The Nanny reruns, thus reversing Pascal’s Wager. Why would you risk believing if there was any chance an eternal Fran Dreser could be your fate?

The Great Nothing gives new meaning to the theist straw man that atheists must accept that everything came from Nothing. Indeed, Nothing created the heavens and the earth in not six, but three days...and he was drunk on the third...which explains a lot.

Bob the programmer coded our universe to test different structures of space/time. Bob’s universe is likewise coded by a programmer named Ted, who was programmed by Kim. This seeming infinite regress is made possible by a universe in which time has no beginning in which some hypothetical programmer resides.

Loki, if that is his name, is a trickster god who planted various memories, miracles and holy books into our past to mess with humanity. How can anyone be sure of their revelations if everything could be based on lies from a being who can manipulate reality?

Throwing Apologetics Under the Bus

Here's a line of questioning that undermines the entire field of apologetics.

1. Do you believe an all-powerful being is possible?
2. If so, can an all-powerful being deceive limited beings?
3. Are you a limited being?
4. Then how can you trust personal revelation, outside authority, historical records, physical evidence or anything that you feel supports your beliefs in a world with an all-powerful being?

Any theist, by definition, would answer "yes" to question one. The answer to question two is necessarily "yes." I think we can all agree that three is a "yes,"especially in relation to an all-powerful being. Which leads us to question four.

I recently asked this question to the Google+ community for the Christian Apologetics Alliance.

In a world where a supernatural entity exists with the power to reveal knowledge to me or others directly or indirectly, how can I be sure that the same or different supernatural entity won't reveal false knowledge?

Here is the link to the original post. The responses, for the most part, refused to acknowledge the entirety of the question. None of the comments were able to adequately answer the question in my opinion, but I encourage you to judge for yourself.

Of Course I Care

“If you could meet any historical figure, who would it be and why?” I was asked this question by a friend the other day when we were both feeling especially hypothetical. It’s one of those probing questions that come up every once in while to gleam insight about someone that regular conversation would never gleam. It also prompts me to use the word gleam, which is an awesome word. Gleam.

Anyway, my answer was and is “Jesus.” My friend, a Christian, likewise answered Jesus. He wanted to meet the son of God and be blessed, forgiven, and/or taught by him. My friend assumed my reasons for meeting JC were similar. He didn’t know that I was an atheist. Setting the record straight, I said that I wanted to meet Jesus to know who he really was--expressing my skepticism of the bible. My friend was a little taken back but evenutally followed up with another question. “As an atheist, why would you care about meeting Jesus?”

It’s a good question considering many nonbelievers are fairly tuned out of religion in general. To me, the baffling question is “how can anyone not care?” There are really only two options, both of which are extremely compelling in their own way. The first is that there is a god. I started off talking about JC, but really the possibility of any god should be a topic of interest. If it’s true, it means we live in a world not confined to the material where literally anything is possible. It’s kind of like living in a Tolkien novel that may continue after death. If I believed, I imagine I would pursue the ins and outs of doctrine and the historocity of miracles with even more rigor than I explore secular ideas.

Option two is that there are no gods. Initially this seems mundane, but consider that if this is true, it means the vast majority of humanity, past and present, base their lives around some variation of a wildly ambitious lie. They effectively believe that magic is real and that stories as fantastic as the most outrageuous fiction are historically accurate. In a psychological, sociological, anthropological, neurological and just-plain-logical sense--that’s incredible...and a more than a little unnerving.
We all argree that one of these options is true. So to the apatheist too apatheistic to even know or care that he or she is an apatheist, I ask again, how can anyone not care?

Explanations

A natural explanation is always better than a supernatural explanation. This goes for theories, hypothesises, guesses, hunches anything--if it relies on the natural it is preferable by the sheer fact that we know that the natural exists and don’t know the supernatural exists. This will remain true until we have proof of miracles, repeatable experiments in clear violation of natural laws, or something to confirm that magic is real.

This may seem obvious, but the religious rarely apply the rule to the claims of their church. For instance, Christians often claim the best evidence supporting their faith is the empty tomb of Jesus Christ.* This is really the linchpin of Christian apologetics. While whether or not there ever was an empty tomb as described in the bible is debatable, if we assume the resting place of JC was revealed to be empty--there are so many better explanations than resurrection. Examples follow.

• Early Christians could have removed the body to propagate the resurrection lending validation to Christianity.
• Authorities could have lied about the true location of Jesus’ tomb to keep Christians away.
• Secretly Christian authorities could have kept the body for themselves in hopes Jesus’s reputation for healing was valid postmortem.
• A bear inside the tomb could have eaten Jesus’ body.
• Aliens could have removed the body just to mess with us.

There are good reasons why these scenarios are unlikely, but I find them all more likely than the divine reanimation of Jesus’ corpse. Each explanation, outside of the last option, we know could happen. They are consistent with our experience of reality. We have evidence that the man we now refer to as Jesus existed. We have evidence that this man had followers with an interest in spreading his word. We have evidence that government employees sometimes act outside or against their duties. We have evidence that religious motives can drive people to lie and break the law. We have evidence that bears exist and eat any available meat when hungry enough. Some of this evidence is not ironclad, but it’s something. This is enough to show that the above options (outside the alien bit) are possible, if not probable.

The problem with positing a divine resurrection is that we can’t even say that it is possible. We’d need evidence that both God exists and that the dead can rise, neither of which we have. In fact, brain activity returning days after brain death is contrary to everything we know about neuroscience. The heart beating again after rigamortis sets in is in direct conflict with biology. This brings me back the the alien option. Clearly an alien moving JC is excessively unlikely, but is it possible? Well, just as we don’t have evidence for divine resurrections, we don’t have evidence of intelligent alien life, but there’s a difference. Aliens are not in conflict with science. There’s nothing that prohibits life starting and evolving on another planet. Because of this, an advanced race with seemingly no motive for abduction taking a religious leader is possible while said religious leader getting up and walking away from a crucifixion is not.

*In my experience, apologists most often refer to the empty tomb as evidence supporting their faith, more so than even eye witness accounts of Christ risen. It’s as if they realize that accounts of witness could be fabricated yet believe there is still an empty tomb somewhere sealed from 2000 years of tampering that we can use as “exhibit A.” This obviously isn’t the case. There are plenty of natural explanations for eye witness accounts that are more valid than divine resurrection by the same rule referenced above--most notably that they are, in fact, fabrications.

One Step Forward, Two Steps Back.

God answers questions of origin, purpose and method...with another question. In essence, replacing a natural mystery with a supernatural mystery. Seeing how we know the natural exists and we don't know the supernatural exists, I'm more comfortable with natural mysteries.

The question of origin.
Q: Where did we come from?
A: From God.
Q: Where did God come from?

The question of purpose.
Q: Why are we here?
A: God put us here.
Q: Why is God here?

The question of method.
Q: How did we come to be?
A: God made us.
Q: How did God make us?

All Bets Are Off.

I’ve been debating a baker’s dozen of Christian Apologists and they all claim to have the logical high ground. After all, the best way to demonstrate that you are the most logical is simply by stating “I’m the most logical.” (read:sarcasm) This got me thinking, once you evoke the supernatural, does logic even matter?

Merriam-Webster defines logic as “a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration.” The words “science,” “validity,” “inference,” and “demonstration” all lose meaning against the supernatural. Gravity is not valid to Superman. I can’t accurately infer anything about the actions of a genie. Someone, please, demonstrate God.

If the supernatural exists, all bets are off. God can exist, but so can literally anything. You may be praying to Allah, but only because a telepath is forcing it upon your mind. Jesus could return, or he could be shapeshifter in disguise. God himself may be unwittingly doing the bidding of being that can conceal his influence even from the Lord.

If you think God is, by definition, the top dog and creator of everything thus making the above scenarios nonsensical, I ask you, how could you possibly know in a supernatural universe? Maybe an otherwise unknown mystical creature possessed the authors of the Bible just to mess with humanity. Suddenly we can’t trust our senses. We can’t even trust history since everything that once was may have been rewritten last Thursday.

An all-powerful being is capable of every deception. Just because your God wouldn’t do such things doesn’t mean a random supernatural entity wouldn’t. As a theist you must not only believe the supernatural is possible, but also that your particular flavor of the supernatural is real in the face of no evidence. Even if you suddenly you had evidence, it could be contrived by malevolent magic. All. Bets. Are. Off.

It appears as though the universe has rules that have made everything happen in a manner that is understandable, even if we don’t yet fully understand it. Sure, each rule could just be an illusion waiting to be turned on it’s head, but I choose to believe in only the natural. If a theist ever convinces me that the supernatural is possible, I’ll suddenly have many more questions...each crazier, yet entirely possible, than the last.