I Eat Meat

A Christian apologist asks “what is the difference (according to your view of reality) between humans and other animals? And a follow up question, are you vegan?”

I know where this question comes from. Christians, and many other religious types, view humanity as categorically different from animals and assumes anyone who accepts evolution thinks they are on par with wildlife. Well, yes and no. I don’t believe man holds a special place in any mystical or supernatural way, nor do we have a unique link to the transcendent. Modern humans share a common ancestor with all animals, but that doesn’t mean we aren’t unique in several important ways.

Humans have a far greater potential for intelligence, reason, and self-awareness than animals. It’s hard to tell how far ahead of the second smartest animals we are in these regards, but it’s clear to me that we are far ahead. The apologist's question came up on a post about morality, so I will address the follow-up question in that context. I am not vegan. The moral distinction I make between killing animals and killing people, beyond the legality and public opinion of such actions, is this: humans have a far more awareness of self, of what happens to them, and of what will happen to them. Awareness for negative acts against oneself and the consequences thereof, paired with the actual sensation of pain, is suffering. I believe most animals can only feel the pain aspect, which doesn’t have to be a factor in humane deaths.

Painful deaths and torture of animals that feel pain is immoral, but the instant killing of animals that lack human-like awareness is not, at least according to my understanding of morality.

Here’s the rub. Since animals aren’t capable of language, it’s hard to tell how much awareness they perceive and how much pain they feel. There has to be a spectrum. Dolphins are likely more aware than chickens and chickens likely feel more pain than roaches. I wouldn’t eat animals I consider closer in the spectrum to humans and I try my best not to give business to companies that would painfully kill their livestock. I realize that being vegan would be more moral, but I also realize that not walking outside and potentially stepping on insects would also be more moral. And I also realize that this post could be, in part, a rationalization to justify not wanting to make a difficult lifestyle change, but I believe what I’m saying just the same. Humans are, by every account I’ve seen, at least an order of magnitude more aware than cows and chickens. I can do more to be moral, but the time spent seeking out how to help animals is better spent seeking out how to help my fellow man.

Debates & Misdemeanors

When I started Deity Shmeity my intension was to use it as a record of my exchanges with theists. Long time readers know that never really happened. My first attempt to publish a debate resulted in so much editing that I concluded my time was better spent taking the topic discussed and simply writing an article informed by the theistic objections. Why so much editing, you might ask? Well, debates, especially those on-line, have a way of branching off into new topics before the previous are resolved. Like the Hydra of mythology and Marvel comics, chopping off one head of a crappy argument just results in two more crappy arguments taking it’s place--all without an acknowledgment that the first head lies resting at my feet. More so, debates get personal. I don’t just mean they get all ad-hominemy, although that certainly happens, but also that elements from both my and the theist’s lives are brought up which I feel are either too intimate to post or too irrelevant to make public. Top that off with having to censor out the peanut gallery or else post pages of nonsense in an effort to be a balanced completionist! No, I quickly learned my lesson. The debates are for me, the posts are for you.

That said, the fact that all my posts are informed by at least one theist’s objections is true to this day. My workflow usually goes like this: I post an idea on Twitter or Google+ and let my surprisingly high number of theistic (usually Christian) followers attempt to take it apart. If they fail outright, I post it addressing some of their objections. If they somewhat succeed, I revise the idea to make it tighter, more objection-proof, and clearer. My argument is then also, I like to think, closer to being true--even if it comes down less on the side of “God is obviously bullshit” than I originally intended.

It’s a valuable process to me and one I encourage fellow atheists to take up. Thinking critically about gods and religions will likely give you all kinds of ideas. Most will have been already thought up by someone else, but coming to them organically speaks volumes of their power. Some will be logically true and serve as ironclad takedowns of indoctrinated superstitions. And others will be flawed, inconsistent or fallacious--in which case entering them into the intellectual area for battle and being open to the possibility of being wrong and losing an argument will make you better. It will make you more right in the future, and that’s all that should really matter.

Hercules Fish

Tweet Round-up

When someone says "It's against my religion," I hear "It's against my superstition."

The Catholic Church is completely infallible to those who own bibles and not history books.

Most women would never spend money at a business with the hiring policies of the Church, yet they often give when the basket comes around. I don't get it.

When met with an apologetic claim, I ask "why do you think that?" More often than not, it is because they were told to.

The more debates I have with Christians, the more sure I am that they are wrong. I always think that I couldn't be more sure.

"Moral perfection" doesn't equal mass killings in my book, just in the holy book.

Apologists have a lot of certain knowledge about God's nature, power & motivation until a hard question is asked. Then its all mysterious.

I like to think the Arthur Fonzarelli was an aaaaaatheist.

Jesus preaching the Golden Rule is his validation of subjective morality. What I want done to me may not be the same as what you want done to you.

Apologist when posed a yes or no question in which the answer would expose flaws in their argument: "Read this 200 page book for the answer." (Related: What kind of diabolical BS artist can give you the run-around for 200 pages?)

Calling Islam the religion of peace is like calling FOX News fair and balanced.

For more follow @deityshmeity

Music Shmusic: Jay-Z's Heaven

Usually rap has a lot of "praise the Lord" talk mixed in with lyrics promoting questionable morals. I was pleasantly surprised to hear a song with a more skeptical take from Jay-Z.

Listen to Jay=Z talk a little about the sony in this promo for his new album, which I happen to like a lot.
 

An Invented Religion

=

Shave and a Faith Cut

Little known fact about Occam, he labeled his razors.

Gaps All The Way Down

“God of the gaps” is a type of theological perspective in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence. (from Wikipedia) History has shown us that many gaps can and have been filled as scientific knowledge grows. So much so, in fact, that it is perfectly reseasonable to assume that there is a natural explaination for our remaining gaps. Theists tend not to come to this conclusion, for obvious reasons, but I wonder how long this conclusion may be avoided.

The best example of a closed gap is Darwin’s shutdown of the argument from design. Of course, I realize there are still individuals and backward denominations that dismiss evolution as a valid explainer of the world’s biological complexity, but if the slow-to-come-around Catholic Church is on board, it’s safe to say that the others are simply in denial. From most of my interactions with honest theists, their main beef with “evolution” is that it is incomplete--meaning that it doesn’t take into account life’s ultimate origin. We should recognize this for what it is: a misunderstanding of the Theory of Evolution’s scope, a moving of the goal post from the argument of design to entirely different argument, and a detour from one closed gap to another open gap.

Darwin closing one of the biggest gaps unintensionally converted many theists across the world. Atheist favorite, Richard Dawkins, wrote that he would still be swayed by life’s apparent design if not for the Theory of Evolution. However, explaining the complexity of life doesn’t explain the existence of life. Our biological origin is still an open gap. Science calls it abiogenesis. We have some ideas how it could have happened, but no reproducable experiments to prove which hypothesis is correct. Like the other gap of note, the ultimate origin of the universe, we are unsure. Whether you’re in the quantum foam camp, the violation of causality camp, or any of the other camps that could all be possible from what we see at the quantum level, there’s no smoking gun...yet. My question to theists is this: would settling your lingering questions allow you to let go of God? Humanity is crazy smart. I used to think some answers would be forever beyond our grasp, but now that I have a clearer sense of where science is going, I wouldn’t take anything off the table. My advice? Don’t take atheism off the table. It’s already the most reasonable worldview, and it’s getting more reasonable everyday.

I realize this is my second post directed towards theists in a couple weeks and I'm fully aware that mostly atheists read this blog. I am trying to engage some believers so that I'm not always preaching to the choir (ironically.)

Whether you are theist or atheist, I'd be interested in your opinion of the truth of this statement:

Theists accept that there are some things are beyond our understanding while atheists accept that there are some things we don't yet understand.

Thanks for reading.

Unequal Authority

The argument from authority is one of the most commonly used debate tactics for the simple reason that the debater, any debater, can’t know everything about all the topics a debate will inevitably spill into. Contrary to what many theists believe, omniscience doesn’t exist, so an appeal to experts is both useful and necessary...as long as they are in fact honest experts. Unfortunately, the argument from authority is also one of the most common fallacious debate tactics. Lately, I’ve been thinking about the difference.

An easy way of upping the authoritative worth of your given authority is by using consensus of unbiased individuals. A scientific consensus is among the strongest because the consensus centers around experimentation and evidence. You’d be right to ask if there is evidence available, then why is an authority even needed? If I needed to refer to basic principles of physics in my argument, I could easily demonstrate that the equations we learned in school that govern motion actually work. I don’t need to take my teacher’s word for it, I can run basic momentum/acceleration/gravity/whatever experiments myself and observe that the results match what is expected. Authority is only needed when the experimentation goes beyond what I can carry out. I could go gain a higher education and rent time on super computers or particle accelerator to run results that would convince me of such-and-such scientific principle, but I am either unwilling to do this or simply don’t have the resources. In this case, taking the word of a scientific consensus is an acceptable substitute. It is acceptable because the findings and results are repeated by other scientists who have a vested interest in accuracy. If something incorrect as accepted, then everything built on that something will also be incorrect. Things are peer-reviewed and double-blinded to eliminate biases. Competition breeds better science, a concept the often science illiterate free-market capitalists should appreciate, but I digress.

Let’s compare science to history. The evidence in this case are records which have a varying degree of authenticity. Video records are by far the best, followed by audio and the more easily ‘shopped photographic records. These both are only available in the modern age--which can often be backed up with other modern records, even living witnesses on occasion. Moving back in time we only have written records. Before the printing press, these records are subject to deterioration or else revised editions which could have been altered purposefully or incidentally. Remember the childhood game of telephone? Like that. Further back still, these written records are controlled only by the elite minority educated enough to read and write. It’s understood that the further back the records the less reliable they are. The historian with a focus on whatever time period in question surely knows more than I, but I will always remain more skeptical of him or her than a scientist reporting results. For all these reasons it becomes rarer and rarer that historians come to a consensus the older the age in question.

Appealing to a consensus among theologians is more problematic. Whereas science relies on gathering evidence without biases and history relies on interpretations of possibly biased records, theology (in most cases) relies on interpretations of possibly biased records with the intention to justify a bias. Catholics, for example, appeal to the authority of the Church, a group with a vested interest in maintaining their relevancy. Of course there is a consensus among Bishops that the Eucharist is the literal body of Christ, but this is as meaningless to anyone outside the church as a consensus among high schoolers that they shouldn’t have homework on Fridays. Or as I analogize to Catholics, who are often Republicans due to their pro-life stance, a consensus among non tax payers that taxes should be raised isn’t exactly an unbiased consensus.

A motto of the freethinker is to "always question authority." It's a good motto. How do your trusted authorities hold up?

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.

The Unconvinced Jew

If you witnessed someone walking on water, consistently and visibly healing the sick, casting out demons, spontaneously creating bread and fish, turning water into wine, calming storms, killing trees with a glance, and raising the dead including himself--wouldn't you be convinced that the guy is the son of God? Even the most atheist of atheists would have to admit that is some pretty extraordinary evidence. It certainly meets my conversion standards.

Imagine if you were not only present, but you had a vested interest in believing this guy was the messiah. If he was one of your people and fulfilled the prophecy you've been staking your entire worldview on. Imagine you were a Jew in the presence of Jesus.

Yet, many Jews did not buy what Jesus was selling. Many did, sure, but considering the Moses-level miracles...why not all? Or at least 99%? If there is something I'm not getting about history, please let me know, but the way I see it, how am I supposed to accept claims two thousand years removed with here-say records when so many of the contemporary neighbors weren't impressed.

Maybe, just maybe, the "miracles" just weren't impressive.

Going Down the Foxhole

There are about a dozen words and phrases that can weaponize the more “militant” atheist. Using the descriptor “militant” is one of them, another is the similarly war-themed phrase “there are no atheists in foxholes.” Many a blogger has pointed out that this is historically inaccurate. It may even be currently inaccurate, but if there are no atheists in foxholes at the time you are reading this, it probably has more to do with less of an application for foxholes then their tendency to convert the godless.

The people who say “there are no atheists in foxholes” are assuming that religious thought in the face of death is inevitable. I don’t need to cite foxhole atheists to disprove that. If you want to know about atheists who stayed atheists to the grave, just Google them. They are many. Think Christopher Hitchens’ new book, Mortality, is about taking up Catholicism? Not so much.

There is always a problem with using words like “all” and “none” when referring to a group of people as numerous as atheists, which is what this sentence essentially does. (Ironically, there is also a problem using words like “always.”) Humans are a diverse bunch and very little applies to the entirety of any sect. It would be more accurate to say that “there are fewer atheists in foxholes.” This may be an accurate statement, I don’t know. I’d point out that if it is accurate, there could be other reasons than religious conversion as to why there are fewer atheists in foxholes. The godless might just trend pacifist or not like guns. After all, it’s the God-fearing Republicans who are typically for capital punishment, the NRA, and military spending. I just don’t know. I’d have to see some stats. Do they do surveys in foxholes? Didn’t think so.

If I were to tweak the statement even more, could there be any truth to it? Are there are fewer atheists facing eminent demise? It depends. It’s my experience that adults who embrace a label as politically loaded as “atheist” have thought about the decision for a long time. They have thought about death and have come to the conclusion that nothing awaits us once the body and brain are kaput. Ruling out hell is actually quite comforting and makes death nothing to fear. If by atheist the question refers to more than those who self-identify and includes the nonbeliever-by-default, then, yes, those people may make a last minute appeal to their vague idea of a deity. I imagine that happens on deathbeds and foxholes around the world, but, again, I don't know.

Okay, let’s recap. People who use the phrase “there are no atheists in foxholes” are either stupid or lying. They are stupid for accepting and perpetrating a wild exaggeration that is based on someone’s anecdotal evidence that may or may not hold a kernel of truth; or they are lying to brand atheism as a cheap convenience to stifle the truth that atheism as a worldview is more valid then one based on mythology. I could just as easily say that "there are no theists outside of foxholes"--which holds as much metaphorical truth as the reverse and paints believers in a far worse hypocritical light. However, I won't say that, because I'm not stupid or a liar.

Fairness & The Performance Enhancing Deity

I've been thinking a lot lately about fairness. For a society that values fairplay, I can't help but wonder, what in life is fair? It is not fair to ask the rich to pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes. On the other hand, it is not fair that the wealthy to have more opportunities than the poor. It isn't fair for someone to be born an English Royal while another child is born starving in Africa. Beyond a birthright of luxury, some are born with the genetic potential to succeed over others. I.Q., physical beauty, an ambitious personality--all kinds of attributes contribute to one's eventual success of failure. It isn't fair.

Conservatives want us to believe that success is all about elbow grease, and most of it is, but not nearly all. No one trains for success more than the athletes competing in the Olympics. A friend of mine was a near Olympic-level cross skier. He was in better shape than I could ever hope to be and constantly skied in the winter and ran in the summer. Yet, he was only near Olympic-level. Truth is, I could never be the best cyclist or the best swimmer because I don't have Lance Armstrong's lung capacity or Michael Phelps' body shape. I'm too short to play for the NBA and too tall to jockey. I'd me mad if I didn't understand, but I do. Life isn't fair. Life is random.

If God exists, why is life random? Why set some up for heaven on earth and leave others to suffer? The "blessed are the" whatevers argument has us to believe that the meek and poor will inherit heaven while to rich will need to work hard to find their place. Truth is, those who suffer on earth are more likely to suffer in the afterlife as well, assuming Christian doctrine is correct. The poor are the more likely to set down a path of commandment-breaking actions if only to survive. The deck is stacked against them in this life and the next. If life isn't random, then what is the apologetic answer for God's haphazard cruelty?

Some must think God helps counter his previous bad decisions by deciding to help those who ask. Let's double back to the Olympics for this example. There are strick rules against athletes using human growth hormones because they give an unfair advantage. Even though I have argued that certain athletes already have a natural unfair advantage, I totally agree that man should not add to the problem. Why is it okay for God to add to the problem? Why should some athletes have a supernatural advantage? The faithful's impulse to pray to God for a win isn't practically unfair--because, of course, it does nothing--but it certainly shows the athlete's intension to be unfair. The only reason that the Olympic Committee and the people of the world allow this holy appeal is because we all know it doesn't work. Belief, in this case, is topical. It's right there on the surface, but deep down, we know. We know prayer doesn't work. We know life is random. Deep down, we're all atheists.

Grundy Disagrees! #1

I think of Deity Shmeity as the home of Grundy, me, but what kind of internet citizen would I be if I never left the house? Taking my opinions on the road sometimes clash with fellow bloggers...and by sometimes I mean often. So, as an argumentative travel log, I introduce Grundy Disagrees! If you, kind readers, find value in my comments outside to DS proper, let me know. Grundy Disagrees! may become a regular thing.

Over at A-Unicornist, Mike D wrote a post pimping a comment about the Fine-Tuning Argument for God. I felt that the comment, which said that the unlikelihood of our universe being life-friendly is more meaningful without a deity than with, totally missed the point of the argument. Fine-tuning isn't about meaning, it's about probability. I'm on record as saying it is one of the very few, if not only, arguments for God that at least has the potential to be compelling. As usual, any comment not toeing the extreme atheist line drew comments painting me as an apologist. This urks me, but the other comments from Mike and Tony where mostly correct, yet still missed what I was initially trying to say.

Speaking of apologists, I found a duzy in Luke Nix. To his credit, he was perfectly nice throughout to exchange. If he believes I'm destined for hell, he didn't rub my face in it. However, I found his reasoning somewhat circular and very confusing. While the initial post was about the atheist question of "who created God," the comments went somewhere else entirely. He talked of logic like many theists talk of morality and claimed that the law of non-contradiction proves existence outside of our universe among other things.

If you have a chance, please check out the comments of these posts and let me know either here or there if I made good points or where I went wrong. If I'm missing something, I really want to know.

BTW, I recommend A-Unicornist and hope to have Mike D as an interview sometime soon.

Does the Bible Represent an Omniscient God?

I've previously posted as to why an omniscient God makes no sense, but theists continue to claim that the Lord is all-knowing. I assumed they came to this belief from the Bible, but now I'm not so sure.

Let's look at the story of Abraham and Isaac. Abe is commanded by God to sacrifice his son Isaac to prove his faith and obedience to the Lord. Abe moves ahead with the order preparing for the ritual killing and just before he lights his kid on fire, the Almighty says...

“Do not lay a hand on the boy. Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son. ” 

Genesis 22 : 12 New International Version 

God knows now, meaning he didn't know then. If God knew then, why the charade of testing Abraham in the first place?

So where did the idea of omniscience come from, if not the Bible? Well...it still kinda came from the Bible. This is one of it's less publicized contradictions, even in the atheist community. The two passages that claim omniscience, according to About.com, are from Psalm and Isaiah. Let's check them out.

2 You know when I sit and when I rise; you perceive my thoughts from afar.
3 You discern my going out and my lying down; you are familiar with all my ways.
4 Before a word is on my tongue you, Lord, know it completely.
5 You hem me in behind and before, and you lay your hand upon me.
6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me, too lofty for me to attain. 

Psalm 139:2-6 New International Version

I've read emo-school-girl poetry more interesting than this. This Psalm is clearly not the word of the Lord, it's a poem to the Lord. Surely the Genesis bit is more telling of God's superpowers, it is a direct quote, after all.

13 Who can fathom the Spirit of the Lord, or instruct the Lord as his counselor?
14 Whom did the Lord consult to enlighten him, and who taught him the right way? Who was it that taught him knowledge, or showed him the path of understanding? 

Isaiah 40:13-14 New International Version

Again, this is someone other than God talking about God. In fact, this guy's just asking questions. Rather good questions, actually. I'm guessing the answer is supposed to be "no one" meaning that God is omniscient, but I see these as skeptical questions that show another paradox of God's nature.

So there you have it, a couple believer's musings are the foundation for God's omniscience while the Lord acknowledges his own blind spot in regards to Abraham. How the hell is the Biblical take away an all-knowing deity? I don't get it.

Morality Week Reflection

During Morality Week, I tried my best to explain morality from an atheist perspective. I hoped to be able to sum up morality in a tight text snippit. A typographic sound byte. The tagline for godless goodness. I think I failed.

Is this because I suck? Maybe, but I doubt it. Morality is a multilayered issue. It’s more than commandments. It’s even more than the Golden Rule, which is probably the most utilitarian moral cliff-note available. I think the best way to verbalize my view of morality is a set of “best practices” to live by. Let's break it down one last time.

Right vs. Wrong

Let’s rebrand “right” and “wrong” as “better” and “worse.” I say “better” and not “best” because the “best” thing for an individual may be at the expense of others. Morality only makes sense as a term when it's applied to the group. We are moral because we are social. We are social because others enrich our lives.

Objective vs. Subjective Morality

Morality varies across cultures. Even within the U.S., polls show there are many issues that have the population split as to their moral worth. This is evidence for subjective morality. The only "evidence" any one has ever presented for objective morality is asking a question similar to "is murder wrong?" To which I give my answer, "yes." The answer is my belief that murder is wrong. It's subjective. Your belief, which is also likely to be that murder is wrong, is subjective. The argument of common consent basically states that most people believe in God therefore God exists. This argument of common consent seems to be their basis for objective morality as well. Most people believe murder is wrong, therefore it is wrong. Unlike the argument of common consent as applied to God, I am part of the consent in regards to murder, but that only means that we should treat murder as wrong. To say it is wrong, or in fact exists at all outside of humanity's ability to conceive and act upon it, is unfounded. In addition, belief in objective morality is dangerous. The same people who don't just believe murder is wrong, but know it is wrong, also know that homosexuality and other victimless "sins" are wrong. With this supposed infallible knowledge they can enforce what are really just opinions without considering the possibility that they are wrong. Abortion clinic bombers not only know that abortion is wrong, but they know they are doing the Lord's work. To paraphrase MiB's Agent Kay, "Imagine what they'll know tomorrow."

The Argument from Moral Truth

While I don't see any evidence for objective morality, this argument is flawed to the point of uselessness even granting a universal moral truth. The argument states:

1. There exist objective moral truths. (murder is not just distasteful, but it's actually wrong.)
2. These objective moral truths are not grounded in the way the world is but, rather, in the way the world ought to be. (Consider: should white supremacists succeed, taking over the world and eliminating all who don’t meet their criteria for being existence-worthy, their ideology still would be morally wrong. It would be true, in this hideous counterfactual, that the world ought not to be the way that they have made it.)
3. The world itself—the way it is, the laws of science that explain why it is that way—cannot account for the way the world ought to be.
4. The only way to account for morality is that God established morality (from 2 and 3).
5. Therefore God exists.

Why did God make murder wrong? Why not make it right? Is there any reason for God's choice or is morality completely arbitrary? If God had a reason, then we should be able to come to the same reason. If God had no reason, then why follow pointless rules? Either God is a redundant middle man or we are still left with no reason moral truths are true. If we feel the need to explain our possible objective morality, then why are we more comfortable with a lack of a supernatural explanation then we are with a lack of a natural explanation? At least we know the natural exists! The whole argument is passing the buck.

The Bible as a source of morality.

Item 4 of the argument leads to where believers go to find God's established morality. The Bible is a popular repository of perceived goodness. Shall we start with the Old Testament that commanded people to keep slaves, slay their enemies, execute blasphemers and homosexuals? Hmm...it might be best to pick and chose which Biblical morals to follow and interpret them to be relevant to our society. The question here is, if you need the Bible to give you your morals, how do you know which morals in the Bible are the most moral? It's, of course, because we already had morality before we checked the "good book." It makes sense, if the majority of people didn't think murder was a bad thing prior to Moses, I doubt humanity would have survived long enough to get those tablets. If you believe that sort of thing.

Pascal’s Assumption

The Argument from Decision Theory (Pascal’s Wager):

1. Either God exists or God doesn’t exist.
2. A person can either believe that God exists or believe that God doesn’t exist (from 1).
3. If God exists and you believe, you receive eternal salvation.
4. If God exists and you don’t believe, you receive eternal damnation.
5. If God doesn’t exist and you believe, you’ve been duped, have wasted time in religious observance, and have missed out on decadent enjoyments.
6. If God doesn’t exist and you don’t believe, then you have avoided a false belief.
7. You have much more to gain by believing in God than by not believing in him, and much more to lose by not believing in God than by believing in him (from, 3, 4, 5, and 6).
8. It is more rational to believe that God exists than to believe that he doesn’t exist (from 7).

There was a time when I thought this argument made logical sense. I first heard Pascal’s Wager from my favorite high school teacher. He taught algebra, coached football, and, not surprisingly, was highly involved with the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. Back then, the only skeptical thought I had on the wager was that belief brought on by a safe bet, isn’t the faith needed for entry into heaven. It is merely smart gambling. As an atheist, I now know this is one of the flaws with the Argument from Decision Theory, but not the only one.

The second flaw in regards to Pascal’s Wager is that it does nothing to explore the probabilities of God’s existence. For example, if God’s existence is infinitesimal, then even if the cost of not believing in him is high, the overall expectation may not make it worthwhile to believe. You can see how this invalidates Pascal’s Wager by considering similar wagers. Say I told you that a vampire moved in as your neighbor, and that unless you draw a vile of your blood to leave outside every night he will break in and suck you dry. According to Pascal’s Wager, you should break out the needle and tourniquet...but you don’t. The probability of the neighboring vamp is so low that the risk of death is negligible.

The final flaw is the most damning. The wager relies on some huge-ass assumptions. It assumes that God is the Christian God, that there is a heaven and a hell, and that said Christian God will send believers to heaven and unbelievers to hell. For this argument for God to possibly work, we’d need a separate argument that shows that these assumptions are true. Since this is the supernatural we’re talking about, meaning that all bets are off, it could be that believers go to hell and nonbelievers go to heaven. Following the wager would then mean eternal torment. The possibilities are endless and therefore the probability of any one supernatural scenario (back to flaw #2) is infinitely small.

Before any vamp nerds point this out, I realize my analogy for flaw #2 is itself flawed. Vampires can’t enter your home without an invitation, so “breaking-in” is off the table. If this bothers you, please substitute “vampire” with “velociraptor” and “blood” with “chew-toy.”)