- Home
- About
- FAQ
- Law & Politics
- Media
- Events
- Press Information
- Christians Take Over Interfaith Army Chapel in Combat Zone
- Press Kit
- 9/11: 'Never Forget' Must Include All Victims
- Atheists Advocate Separation of Church and State at DNC
- Congressman Pete Stark to Speak at 2013 National Convention
- American Atheists Announces 50th Anniversary Logo Design Contest
- American Atheists Announces Harassment Policy for Conventions and Conferences
- American Atheists Jubilant Over Latest Religion Report
- American Atheists Removes Religious Billboards from Charlotte
- Former Pastor Now American Atheists Public Relations Director
- Former Pastor Teresa MacBain New Public Relations Director
- ITALIAN JUDGE LUIGI TOSTI ACQUITTED!
- American Atheists to Protest Bradford County, FL Decalogue on May 19
- Join
- Shop
Supporting Civil Rights for Atheists and the Separation of Church and State
16
Nov
2011
Debating religion: The evidential problem of good and its implications
A Philosophically Informed Perspective, by Justin Vacula
In a recent debate with popular Christian apologist William Lane Craig, philosopher Stephen Law -- arguing against the motion that [the Christian] God exists -- presented an ingenious gambit known as 'the evidential problem of good.' Law's argument raises two main concerns. If belief in an all-evil god is rendered irrational by the presence of joy and happiness in the world, why isn't belief in an all-good god rendered irrational by the presence of egregious suffering in the world? If belief in an all-evil god is very unreasonable, why should belief in an all-good good be much more reasonable?
The gambit Law presented in his debate with Craig traces back to a Spring 2005 piece written by Law that was published in “Think” titled “The God of Eth.” Law notes that the traditional arguments for God reveal nothing about his moral character and the argument known as the problem of evil – “if God is all-powerful and all-good, why is there so much suffering in the world” – seems to cast tremendous doubt on belief in an all-good god. Religious thinkers have resorted to “the free will solution” (suffering is a consequence of God giving us free will), “the character-building solution” (suffering can lead us to be compassionate), the “some good require evils” solution (some goods that exist require suffering to exist), and the “mystery card” solution (we can't know the reasons God has for allowing evil) and Law believes these defenses profoundly fail [as, of course, do other atheists].
Law then presents an imaginary debate in an imaginary universe whose members largely believe in an all-evil god. Throughout the debate, the believer in an all-evil god uses the traditional defenses theists use to defend the all-good god, albeit 'mirrored' in a way. For example, a defender of the all-evil god argues “Good in the universe exists because all-evil god gave persons free will; “by giving us free-will, God can be sure we will agonize endlessly about what we should do. […] We end up torturing ourselves. The exquisitely evil irony of it all!” The defender of the all-evil God, in addition, plays the mystery card [similar to theists who defend an all-good god], “True, I may not be able to account for every last drop of good in the world. But remember that we are dealing here with the mind of God. Who are you to suppose you can understand the mind of an infinitely intelligent and knowledgeable being? Isn't it arrogant of you to suppose that you can figure out God's master plan?”
Ironically (or not), when Law presented these ideas in his debate with William Lane Craig, Craig 'played the mystery card' stating that we are simply not in a position to say that an all-good God [who is also all-knowing and all-powerful] could not have reasons for allowing evil in this world. Law responded, later in the debate saying something similar to, “Who are you know the mind of an all-evil god” clearly showing the absurdity of Craig's “mystery card.” Law, on his blog, noted “...that STILL doesn't help Craig at all, so far as explaining why it's more reasonable to believe in a good god rather than an evil god (the latter belief being absurd). The point is this: whether or not Craig plays the sceptical card, he's still left having to explain why belief in his good god is very significantly more reasonable than the obviously absurd belief that there's an evil god. […] Craig failed to explain why belief in his good god is significantly more reasonable than the absurd belief that there's an evil god.”
Law's ideas were so hard-hitting that someone who believes that Craig won every debate he has ever participated in admitted that Craig lost the debate with Stephen Law. This person formulates Law's argument which perhaps other atheists, including you, can use in future discussions with theists: “(1) There is just as much evidence from the goodness/evil of the world that the creator god is evil, as there is that the creator god is good. (2) We are justified in believing that evidence of goodness in the world demonstrates that there is not an evil creator god. (3) Therefore, we are equally justified in believing that the evidence of evil in the world demonstrates that there is not a good creator god.”
Law ends his “Think” article saying, “...belief in an evil god clearly remains downright silly. But then why isn't belief in a good God also silly? Aren't we justified in rejecting belief in a good God for the same very good reason that we are justified in rejecting belief in an evil God? If the problem of good is fatal to belief in an evil God (which it clearly is), why isn't the problem of evil similarly fatal to belief in a good God? That's the question the theist needs to answer.” The question still stands...and William Lane Craig has failed to adequately address it.
While atheists obviously believe that belief in any gods is irrational – and while some feel that religious belief is so ridiculous that it should only be ridiculed – it should be important for atheists to understand why theism is an irrational position and, for those who are able and willing to do so, present intelligent counter-objections to theism. Atheists, like Law, with a background in philosophy can often do a great service by presenting an intellectual defense for fellow atheists and we would do good to learn from them instead of simply outright dismissing religious belief without providing effective arguments and informed rebuttals. While I detest gangster rap music, nothing seems worse to me than atheists 'losing' debates with theists. Don't be a victim because you weren't prepared.
Take time to listen to this great debate. I could not possibly cover the entire debate in this post – and did not intend to – so enjoy Law's refutation of Craig's arguments.
—————
Justin Vacula, author and owner of justinvacula.com — a blog about atheism, theism, philosophy, and much more — is an active outspoken atheist in Northeastern Pennsylvania who is the co-organizer, spokesperson, and board member of the Northeastern Pennsylvania Freethought Society, a secular discussion and activist group of non-theists. Justin received a large amount of media attention in his 2009 church/state battle in Northeastern Pennsylvania and graduated from King’s College in Pennsylvania with degrees in Philosophy and Psychology in addition to receiving a distinguished award in Philosophy and a minor in Professional Writing. He regularly publishes articles for Examiner.com as the ‘Scranton Atheism Examiner’ in addition to authoring blog posts.
Your contribution to our Matching Billboard Fund is DOUBLED!
50th Anniversary National Convention
The convention was a great success!
We are now offering on-demand video
of all the talks for $20! (6 months' access).
DVDs are also coming very soon.
Like our Page on Facebook and
Follow us on Twitter
for updates on DVD availability.
50th Anniversary T-Shirts, polos, & fleece jackets
still available in very limited supply—
Get your piece of history before they're gone!
Available for web purchase soon.
See you next Easter weekend in Salt Lake City!
March 28-31, 2013
Austin, Texas
Featuring: A.C. Grayling, Congressman Pete Stark, Katherine Stewart, Jay Jay French, Cara Santa Maria, Dave Silverman, Matt Dillahunty, Teresa MacBain, Seth Andrews, Hemant Mehta, and many more!
American Atheists Magazine 
is now available on your iPhone and iPad!
User login
Archive
- December 1969 (2)
- September 2008 (2)
- October 2008 (2)
- November 2008 (5)
- December 2008 (1)
- March 2009 (1)
- April 2009 (1)
- May 2009 (1)
- October 2009 (1)
- November 2009 (4)
Pages
Online
There are currently 0 users online.
Who's new
- bplinson
- kareemsaccojgecpcjr
- jyzopoxmota896k
- dexterschaefercvzbr
- outsideview
- JimSeuf
- jenndork
- LeonardoDV
- JohnQB07
- geojs11260
Popular Today
- Representative opens House session with Carl Sagan quotation; Ed Buckner in the news about Georgia state parks (434)
- Atheists to Accept Georgia Governor’s Offer by Sending Atheist Books to State Parks (166)
- 2013 National Convention (110)
- Atheism (96)
- Welcome to the American Atheists Online Shop (93)
Pages
Get our Website Updates!
Do you want the latest AA news as soon as it happens?
Sign up using the link below and be the first in the know!
American Atheists Visa
Apply for the American Atheists Visa Card
and show your support with every purchase you make!
Comments
While I like your article, I would suggest that, if you want people to take your articles seriously, you would perform some basic review-and-edit before going to press. This article is filled with typos, which, as much as I enjoyed it, I couldn't help but think that it ranks more among the hastily-prepared Facebook posts than among the reasonable, rational publications of a respected organization. No hard feelings. I completely support American Atheists' cause and I hope you take this only as the constructive criticism it's meant to be. Cheers!
Where are all these typoes?
If you have to ask where all the "typoes" are, there is a problem. Look the up the spelling. There are numerous errors in the article. A very evident one in the very first paragraph. Find it yourself.
This is a typical example of how an organization allows low quality writting to be posted and represent its point of view. This was my first visit to this site and it does no represent well.
Scott, since several days have passed since your post and there is no sign of correction, I have to conlcude that they do not expect such respect for their content and or ideas.
In general, I like Justin's log. As to errors, I do my best to pick apart anything I read. To that end, I did find, with a couple of readings some minor errors. However, in one quick read of the greeneconomics post above, I easily find many. "Writting" and "no" in place of what should apparently be "not" in the second, two-line paragraph, and "conlcude" in the third, single-sentence "paragraph" jump out. You have a higher rate of error going than the person you presume to critique, undermining your own credibility.
To that end, I suggest doing a better job of making your critique. Second, I view Justin's article as a good jumping-off point for a very worthwhile conversation. So, keeping in mind the imperfect nature of conversation, respect one another and focus more on the ideas expressed in order to improve our critical thinking and logical arguments. Respectfully, Jim.
I don't understand why it is absurd to believe in an all evil god. It does not seem absurd to me at all.
It's not absurd to believe in ANY kind of God. The question is, does it benefit us to do so?
theotherjimmyolson,
For the same reason it's absurd to believe in any god. But, I agree with you. Belief in an evil god is no more absurd than a good god. In fact a couple of billion people believe in at least one of each.
Satan is an evil god.
Those who say Satan is not a god but believe in both God and Satan are missing a key point of their own religion. God does not get rid of Satan. Why not? Probably because the two are of roughly equal power. So, God cannot get rid of Satan, making them both gods.
Christianity is not monotheism.
Of course, since neither of these gods exists, God cannot get rid of Satan because God does not exist and Satan does not exist.
J.G.K.
Yes. It is absurd to believe in ANY kind of god. And, it doesn't matter whether it benefits us to do so.
Zorastrianism is a belief in two gods, good and evil. Maybe you can hook up with them. The problem with god at all is there is no evidence of any such god, good or evil.
I totally agree and alot people don't want to admit there is no evidence for a god
ken,
A lot of people don't understand the concept of evidence, especially as it applies to questions about our physical universe. An important point here, that I usually forget to make too, is that we're discussing scientific evidence, not courtroom evidence, not logic, just hard scientific evidence.
One time, when I have clarified this, I was told off for the fact that you can't have a theological discussion by demanding hard scientific evidence. I agree. But, we're not arguing theology, which right in the subject starts from the assumption that there is a god worthy of study, or even philosophy.
We're talking about a physical property of the universe.
Is there or is there not any hard scientific evidence to even hint at the possibility that there may be one or more gods in or ruling over our universe? No. Do our laws of physics need to include exceptions for when one or more gods intervene and temporarily suspend the laws of physics? No.
I wrote this in a reply to Christ B, but you also speak of no evidence for god. Explain to me this evidence, because I am intrigued.
It seems your argument is this:
1. If matter exists, then there cannot be a god.
2. Matter exists.
3. Therefore, god cannot exist.
I could agree with your deductible argument, if premise one could be proved true. However, the premise cannot be shown to be true. Consequently, it cannot be proved that to believe in a god is irrational, stupid, or unreasonable.
"but you also speak of no evidence for god. Explain to me this evidence, because I am intrigued."
He said that there is *no evidence for god*. Therefore there is no evidence to show.
"It seems your argument is this:"
He never made an argument for or against the existence of God. He simply made a statement about the lack of evidence for the existence of a God.
"I could agree with your deductible argument, if premise one could be proved true."
You posed this argument yourself...
"However, the premise cannot be shown to be true."
True, you can't really prove the negative claim that "X does not exist" or that "X does not cause or have a hand in Y". For instance, you can't prove that aliens or big foot don't exist or that fairies don't help flowers bloom. Though it can't be proven that aliens and big foot absolutely don't exist, lack of credible evidence to support that they do exist means there's no real reason to believe that they do. They *might* exist and might have a hand in things, but there's not really a reason to believe they do.
"Consequently, it cannot be proved that to believe in a god is irrational, stupid, or unreasonable."
That would depend on the claim and one's reasons for believing in God. While believing that a God exists isn't necessarily irrational, stupid, and/or unreasonable depending on the reasoning and argument, believing that God made the Earth flat or that prayer is more effective in curing disease than medicine is rather irrational, stupid, and unreasonable. Anything from God to big foot to aliens might possibly exist, and so arguing for the existence of something isn't totally unfounded depending on the reasons and arguments, but using the concept of God to argue against what is proven to be true is quite irrational, stupid, and unreasonable.
Raymond,
Fair enough, he did not make an explicit argument for or against the existence of God. Nevertheless, he did make a claim that there is "no evidence for the existence of God." Hopefully we can agree that there is either A) evidence for the existence of a God or B) evidence for the non-existence of a God; to say that A is not true one must adhere to B. Chris denies A, and so he accepts B. However, does the evidence being interpreted, i.e., the entire cosmos and everything in it, lead to B? In order to say yes to this, Chris must show an argument for B; he only provided us with the conclusion of B. If he were to give an argument, then it must be the one I provided. Here is why:
1)There are clear signs of intelligence in the cosmos, as the intelligent design theory has shown us.
2)It cannot be absolutely concluded that because there is evil in the world there cannot be a God; Christian theists, e.g., William Lane Craig, have shown this not to be the case.
3)Simply because theories in science, e.g., the big bang, have gladly explained the universe to be 14-15 billions years old does not rule out the existence of a God; the Kalam Cosmological argument willingly accepts the big bang. I would argue here that it is irrational and unreasonable to say that the earth is only 6-10 thousand years old, like many Christian theists proclaim; their interpretation of Genesis is poor.
4)Simply because God Himself is not visibly seen does not rule out His existence; Christians claim that God has been seen in Jesus the Christ, the third person of the trinity.
Because of visible intelligence in the cosmos, evil and the existence of a God not being in contradiction, the acceptance of the big bang theory and the unnecessary requirement for God to be physically visible, position B cannot be held with much certainty; it is not a strong proclamation.
Moreover, I am glad you admit the possibility of the existence of a God, for I also admit to the possibility of God not existing. However, it is highly improbable for God to not exist. If He doesn’t exist, then matter is self-existent, and this doesn’t seem highly probable. Also, position A seems, in light of the four statements from above, more reasonable and rational than position B.
I’m sure I have not provided a sufficient reply to your words, but I am curious to what you think.
JDG
"To say that A is not true one must adhere to B. Chris denies A, and so he accepts B."
This is a false dichotomy because one can either adhere to choice A, to choice B, or to neither choice. Choosing not to adhere to either choice which would mean they believe that there is no evidence for both for and against the existence of God.
This brings me back to a point I made earlier. You can’t really prove the negative claim that “X does not exist”. There's no credible evidence that aliens exist; however, that does NOT mean that there is evidence that aliens don't exist. There is no evidence either way and so I choose not to believe that aliens exist until someone proves that they do. Choosing to adhere to choice A or B would make one a gnostic theist or gnostic atheist. Choosing to adhere to neither would make one an agnostic theist or agnostic atheist.
"1)There are clear signs of intelligence in the cosmos, as the intelligent design theory has shown us."
Ignoring that Intelligent design is a theory that's not widely accepted...there's not really another cosmos out there, with or without signs of intelligence, to compare ours to so I'm not really sure how one would be able to tell that there are signs of intelligence in the cosmos we live in. It should be noted that evolution says nothing about God and that a person can believe in both at the same time.
"2)It cannot be absolutely concluded that because there is evil in the world there cannot be a God; Christian theists, e.g., William Lane Craig, have shown this not to be the case."
True. Justin Vacula's argument about the "problem of evil/good" wasn't against the existence of God. His argument was against William Lane Craig's concept of the Christian God which would be the Christian God. Evil and God could co-exist, but having an Omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good God is inconsistent with the existence of evil.
"3)theories in science...does not rule out the existence of a God"
True. Science does not speak about God at all. One could believe in what Science tells us about the natural world and in the existence of a God at the same time.
"4)Simply because God Himself is not visibly seen does not rule out His existence"
He doesn't necessarily have to be physically seen, but some sort of distinctive proof of his existence would be nice...Now just because a person doesn't see any evidence that something exists doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but it does mean that there's not really reason to believe it does.
"Christians claim that God has been seen in Jesus the Christ, the third person of the trinity."
Not really a lot of evidence for the existence of a biblical or even a historical Jesus...
"Because of...position B cannot be held with much certainty; it is not a strong proclamation."
Proving position B is near impossible, but does not make Position A any more likely as I stated above.
JDG, you state, " I would argue here that it is irrational and unreasonable to say that the earth is only 6-10 thousand years old..." And it seems you do not believe the mythological tale of Genesis happened as written. I must ask the logical question which no Christian has yet provided an answer. If the absurd tale of Adam & Eve never happened, and the apple was never eaten; then original sin never happened. If original sin never happened, then Jesus serves no purpose, is not needed, is rendered meaningless and irrelevant. The entire Christian faith hinges upon this ridiculous myth and folds like a house of cards as a result. Even Paul states in his epistles how crucial the resurrection is to the Christian religion and proclaims if it were proven untrue, then Christianity is dead.
Well if Jesus' 1 and only reason for having to enter this play is admittedly (even by Chritians), "irrational and unreasonable"; then there is no more argument. The game is over. It is all a sham. How can any christian continue in the faith. A logical person admits the obvious and concedes the loss. So what is your excuse? Are you a Deist? If not, then how do you defend this?
JDG,
You actually said, "1)There are clear signs of intelligence in the cosmos, as the intelligent design theory has shown us."
Really? Such as? What are your clear signs? Remember, the standard to which we will hold your answers is that of scientific evidence, not logic, not a court of law. What scientific evidence can you present that one or more gods exist?
And, how did your intelligent designer get here? It seems to me an intelligence capable of creating universes such as ours at the rate of one a week requires even greater explanation than the universe itself. Would we not then need to postulate an intelligent designer designer and an intelligent designer designer designer and an intelligent designer designer designer designer and ....
And, if we are intelligently designed by some perfect creator, how do you explain the flaws in our design?
* Our retinas are backward. The rods and cones face the backs of our eyes, not the light. This causes us to see a reflected image that the brain must invert to correct. Further, the nerve of each rod and cone faces into the eye. Therefore, in order to get the signal to our brains, we each have a blind spot in each eye.
How is this a good design? Why do squid and octopi not have such flaws in their eyes? Does your God prefer squid to humans?
* Human testicles start out life way up in the chest (a vestige from our fish ancestors) and need to drop down to our scrota later in life. This opens up a cavity in the body making men prone to hernias. Why do our testicles not start out in our scrota? Wouldn't that be a better design?
* Other mammals have nice straight vertebra, and hence no back problems, we (due to our evolutionary history) have a curved spine to allow a species evolved from knuckle walking ancestors to balance on two legs while walking. Would not an intelligent designer have found a way to design us as bipedal from the start rather than kluging our backs in this way leaving us prone to back and neck pain?
Look at the history of the world and the wars and all the suffering.There is no evidence of a benevolant god.Look at the holocaust;people were praying to no avail. how could a loving or even caring god exist--no evidence!
Ken,
It is not necessarily true that if an omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good God exists than that God would prevent evil; thus, you cannot establish an inconsistency with the existence of a wholly good God and evil. Christian theists have offered reasonable responses to the problem of evil, e.g., the free will defense. I will admit that evil is a problem for Christian theists. However, to use the problem of evil to say there is no God is not a good argument. The problem may show there to be no good God, but it does not show there to be no God at all. Furthermore, to be an Atheist you must admit there to be no evil; evil is just some subjective, relative idea, and it is only a product of matter. To even use the terms "evil" and "good" is inconsistent, if one is an Atheist.
JDG
JDG, your posts are so loaded with incorrect assumptions and fallacies. Why is it an atheist cannot know good from evil? Atheism is merely not believing in any god(s). It has nothing to do with morals and right and wrong. Do not be ridiculous with your generalizations. Reason and history show how man evolved both biologically and intellectually without some moral guidance from an invisible skyman. If you and the Jesusites believe that your God is the moral authority for all to follow, then why do we not still own slaves, why do we not stone to death those who blaspheme, or use the lords name in vain, or work on the sabboth, or commtt adultery? Why do we have women's rights? Is it because God came down and decreed all these things? Absolutly not Jdg. It is due to mans own intellect and reason and knowing these things are evil and wrong and making laws to right these wrongs accepted and created by primitive, barbaric man.
Now argue that. Argue from the truth about your God. How do you claim moral authority from such a viscious, evil and murdering God and expect us who know the truth to allow you to make such a bogus statement?
JDC:
Stop using the “Straw Man” fallacy it makes you look foolish. The argument your trying to use is: Argument from authority:
X holds that A is true
X is a legitimate expert on the subject.
The consensus of experts agrees with X.
Therefore, there's a presumption that A is true.
Better example:
The Pope say’s the Bible is true
The Pope is an expert on the Bible
Therefore the Bible is True
When did I use argument from authority?
You never made an argument from authority in the same way that JohnHobe never stated that he believed that the "existence of matter disproves God". I think richunix was trying to be ironic by posing a straw-man on you in the same way that you posed the straw-man on JohnHobe.
2 things we're overlooking here:
1) How can many of the same people who play the "mysterious mind of God" card make very specific claims about precisely what God wants them to do, including dietary, meditative, sexual, sacrificial, clothing, cultural and ritualistic practices, and detailed anthropomorphic motive-driven historical narratives? Shouldn't anyone who plays the mystery card be expelled from their religion and declared a deist? The mystery card contradicts religion, unless applied inconsistently - which is unjustified. If you can't comprehend any cohesive explanation of God's motives, don't tell me you have a personal relationship.
2) Why do smart, capable, and sane people maintain beliefs that are inconsistent with both evidence and reason? If a million literate adults form a religion that worships Santa Claus (equal probability as God, after all), does it make more sense to debate them or to study this psychological / sociological phenomenon? Are we debating a psychological quirk, like arguing to a person with an elevator phobia that elevators are safe?
Chris B,
I think you ask some good questions for theists to consider. How can one claim to know certain things about God, then claim to not know certain things about God? And shouldn't anyone who plays the mystery card be expelled from their religion and declared a deist? As a Christian I would like to engage in a good discussion about these questions because I do think you raise some good questions.
Anyone's claims to understand what God wants them to do in regards to dietary, meditative, sexual, sacrificial, clothing, cultural and ritualistic practices is rooted in their understanding that information has been given in regards to those practices. When someone plays the "mystery card", they are simply claiming that they do not know of any revelation regarding that question. There is nothing wrong with playing the "mystery card" if God has not revealed answers to questions we might have. However, to your point, for a Christian to play the "mystery card" because they don't understand their beliefs well is a horrible reason to play that card.
But, not knowing all God's motives is not an argument against a claimed relationship with God. For all knowledge about motives must come from the one with the motives. If someone doesn't tell me their motives I can only make guesses. This is true with all relationships. If my wife is angry with me and I don't know why, the only way I will ever know is if she tells me. If she doesn't tell me that doesn't mean I don't have a relationship with her.
Now, if someone claims to have revelation from God, then whether that revelation is true or not is up for debate along with a revealing of the evidence or lack thereof.
In regards to your first question in section 2), those answers will have to come with a longer discussion with a person who believes in God. I'm not sure if I fit your criteria of smart, capable, or sane. I may just be a psychological quirk staying away from the safe elevator, or you might be getting on an elevator disconnected to the shaft. There's only one way to find out, inspect the elevator and all that connects to it and see where the evidence points. I will argue that there is sufficient evidence which points to God. This may be where I get on the "crazy train" but I've never had a reasonable discussion with an open minded atheist and I would very much like to understand your side better.
Good reply zagtiger, here's my counter:
First, I'm sympathetic to this argument because as you've stated it, it mirrors the "god of the gaps" problem in science. As transitional fossils are found linking animal 1 with animal 3 via animal 2, for example, creationists often demand more fossils showing a link between 1 and 2 and also between 2 and 3. When those are found, there are even more, smaller gaps that they demand explanation for, as if the predictive power of the underlying theory hadn't just been demonstrated multiple times.
Is my demand for a coherent explanation of god's motives similar to the position of those who won't believe scientific findings until there is a "theory of everything?"
One difference is that the scientists laboring away to gather as much data as possible have a plan for how they will come up with a cohesive explanation for how things work or worked. The plan is to carefully gather tons of data, carefully analyze it, compare the results against predictive and falsifiable hypotheses, check for consistency with other evidence, and have others review and criticize the conclusions. Religion lacks a similarly feasible plan to obtain an understanding of their hypothesized god's motives, and thousands of years of intense effort have yielded little more than a bunch of inconsistent opinions based on little more than intuition. The scientists will make progress because they're using a method that works. Religion will continue to not make progress because it uses a method that never has worked, and never could.
Another difference is that the scientists are typically comparing two or more competing hypotheses, either of which are logically and empirically consistent and possible based on the currently known information. For religion, none of the hypotheses for god's motives are logically and empirically consistent in the first place, which is where the "mystery card" comes in. The problem of evil is just one example. There's also the problem of free will vs. an all knowing god. The problem of how/why an omnipotent being could possibly have any unmet need, Law's gambit, Why god would hide, Etc.
What are we left with when we can't even put together an internally consistent narrative that answers all these questions in a way that is consistent with observation? We have no hypothesis. I think that should be our first clue that we're on the wrong track, and I think we went wrong at the part where we assume the existence of god. I don't think the "mystery card" is a cover for evidence not yet gathered. I think it's a cover for a lack of even one consistent hypothesis.
Chris B,
It is accepted that using the “mysterious mind of God” as a reply to atheism is insufficient, and it is an argument no theist should use.
But there are a few points/questions you brought forth that must be addressed: 1) “The mystery card contradicts religion, unless applied inconsistently – which is unjustified.” 2) “Why do smart, capable, and sane people maintain beliefs that are inconsistent with both evidence and reason?” and 3) “…does it make more sense to debate them [the literate adults who formed their own religion] or to study this psychological/sociological phenomenon?”
Within the first point you attempt to show contradiction and inconsistency, while failing to understand/admit the contradictions and inconsistent claims made by atheists on repeated occasions. “Atheism…implies that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter” (borrowed from the definition given on this website). If atheism is true and all that exists is matter, then there cannot be objective truth; I hope we can agree on this point. However, this would prove to be contradictory: while saying, “There is no objective truth,” one is using an objective claim to make this statement. The objective claim cannot be made, if the notion of no objective truth is to be upheld. Moreover, trying to convince the majority population, who claim to be theists, of the truth that there is no god would also be inconsistent and contradictory to this very claim of no objective truth. According to atheism, if a man believes that there is a god, then his belief is a product of matter. Likewise, if a man believes that there is no god, then his belief is a product of matter as well. Both are right and just for atheism, because “An atheist…must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it, and enjoy it” (once again, taken from the definition provided on this website). If believing in a god accomplishes this task for a person, then so be it; an atheist, by the definition they cling to, should not refute such a decision, because there is no objective truth and no such thing as an ultimate “proper, rational way of thinking.” Therefore, if an atheist attempts to even argue for “truth,” then he/she is contradicting their own definition.
In point two you speak of “evidence.” What is this apparent evidence that shows there cannot be a god? It seems your argument is this:
1. If matter exists, then there cannot be a god.
2. Matter exists.
3. Therefore, god cannot exist.
I could agree with your deductible argument, if premise one could be proved true. However, the premise cannot be shown to be true. Consequently, it cannot be proved that to believe in a god is irrational, stupid, or unreasonable.
Lastly, you ask a proper question in point three. While holding to atheism, it doesn’t make sense to debate these “irrational/outdated” people; it is only proper to study why matter has produced in them a different line of reasoning. Also, your elevator analogy is not a good one. If someone has only been on an elevator once in his/her life, and during that experience the elevator cable snapped, then they would be just in fearing elevators. However, if someone claims that elevators do not exist, then can we rightly label them “irrational/unreasonable.”
I don't understand the point you're trying to make with this statement:
>>If atheism is true and all that exists is matter, then there cannot be objective truth; I hope we can agree on this point.<<
I don't agree with this at all. What does atheism have to do with objective truth? If anything, it would seem that atheism leads one to a concept of *more* objectivity than religion.
Could you please clarify what you mean?
Thanks
tbone54,
You are right, I should have explained what I meant by objective truth. I was referring to morality, because it is the issue of morality that has influenced this LONG list of replies; evil in the world has supposedly shown there to be no evidence for the existence of a god.
If atheism is true, then thinking is the product of matter (to borrow from this website). Furthermore, men’s way of thinking, which is a product of matter, leads men to decide what is good and right for subduing life and enjoying it. However, matter has not produced robotic machines that think in perfect harmony; it has produced free-thinking individuals with different thought processes. Thus, men have different ways of thinking about what is good and right for subduing life and enjoying it; e.g., one man might think giving money to the poor is a correct path for enjoying life, while another man might think killing others in cold-blood murder is a correct path for enjoying life. But an atheist cannot say that one is right and the other is wrong, because each man’s thinking process is only a product of matter. Moreover, an atheist cannot say that there is evil in the world. What they say is evil to them might be good to someone else for the purpose of subduing life and enjoying it.
I only bring up morality, because it seems that atheists are attempting to use morality to show no evidence for a god. Evil in the world is a problem for Christian theists, but the problem of evil doesn’t seem to be a very good argument for there to be no god in general.
Does this help or have I failed again? :)
JDG
Matter isn't just a lump of clay: there are granular differences, & compounded simplicity.
There is only matter, unless you can prove otherwise. Can you?
Attempting & succeeding. There are guidelines set in all the holy books - if there is indeed a parent to everyone, what parent sets up their children to fail? Not good ones, that's for sure.
& yes, morality matters. & matter can have morality: we're made of matter, & we're moral.
You treat morality as if it's the province of something else entirely. The existence of abstract concepts is no proof of anything, except that they are the product of matter.
Miserably. Your patter about matter matters little: it resolves nothing. Having morality & abstract thought simply means that they exist, although not on a physical level.
Don't get a chubby yet: if our species were wiped out tomorrow, these would be gone too.
That's not the argument, & it's stupid.
YOU PROVE this 'gawd' exists. Evidence only. Your 'bibble' is excluded as evidence, as it is shot full of crap.
Don't agree. I'm an objectivist, not a subjectivist, so I can't reply to your argument against atheistic subjectivism. I don't even know any atheist subjectivists. I do think the passage should have included time, space, & energy, if that helps :)
The burden of proof rests on those who make extraordinary claims. It is impractical and error-prone to start from the position that all claims are true until disproven because to do so would necessarily involve believing multiple, contradictory falsehoods at some point and because there are too many possible claims to evaluate in a lifetime (also see John Locke or David Hume). If someone declares a belief in an invisible, flying unicorn that hides beneath a mountain, must you dig up the entire mountain before declaring that belief to be "irrational, stupid, or unreasonable"? No, and I'm right there with you on that. Maintaining a position of skepticism until evidence proves otherwise is already our default in every aspect of life except religion.
The fear would still be irrational because elevator collapses are extraordinarily rare, and the event did not increase the likelihood of more collapses. The fear would be explainable as a result of psychological trauma, but not rational.
People like Craig don't want to face the facts that is no god,they have blinders,Look at all the needless suffering in the world and it is not freewill,innocent children die by the millions,the genocides,human trafficing,serial killers,etc.etc,Icould go on.
Ken,
Why do you care that there are innocent children dying by the millions, the genocides, human trafficking, and serial killers? Everything should be, if you are a "true" atheist, regarded as a product of matter. The purpose of life is to simply find your "own way." Therefore, if someone wants to beat a child, rape a girl,or cause millions to die,then they are just in doing so; everything is relative, and whatever brings someone happiness should be acted out. Also, all the "needless" sufferings you suggested are brought forth by men/women choosing to do something, i.e., all your examples are products of man's freewill.
You are confusing "atheism" with "immorality". You don't need any belief in god to have a moral system that recognizes all the arocities you list as evil.
And for that matter, what about evils that exist that can not be attributed to any human agent's "free will"? Earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, disease?
How do you account for these?
Fair enough, "You don't need any belief in god to have a moral system that recognizes all the atrocities you list as evil." But holding to atheistic beliefs, you cannot say that your idea of what is evil or not is right (see reply above).
Some natural "disasters" are a result of human free will, e.g., the dust bowl. However, some, if not most, seem to not be. A Christian theist would reply that the Earth has become subject to bondage and decay as a result of sin, but I will not go there.
I will, on the other hand, say that many natural occurrences like those you listed can serve a purpose for the Earth and the habitation of life on the Earth. But even if they did not, are they really "evil"? Just because man happens to be "in the way" of these natural occurrences doesn't make them evil; e.g., just because a man places himself in the middle of the street and eventually gets hit by a car doesn't make cars "evil" does it? Just because we build cities in an area where we know there is a high probability that there will be an earthquake, tsunami, etc. doesn’t make those natural events evil does it?
JDG
where is the evidence god does exist
You just got owned ken. Aren't you a little ashamed you had to resort to "where is the evidence god does exist"?
It's like saying "I know you are, but what am I".
Proof positive you got nothing.
It's a valid question, which none of you clowns seem to be able to answer.
No, because there's a HUGE difference in both concept & context.
Obviously you're not bright enough to see that.
Jeez, JDG, how insulting. Why do I need some supernatural nonsense to care about other human beings?
We're not all moral relativists. & obviously you don't know the meaning of the term, or you wouldn't be bandying it about in such a matter.
Stupidest fucking argument ever. We 'choose' eye worms in the eyes of children? We 'chose' all this crap because some talking snake gulled a couple centuries ago? You realize what a cop-out that is? Children are raped (by priests no less), starve to death in the streets, & even in Rio, because this 'life is so sacred', cops shoot little kids because there's way too fucking many of them? We 'chose' the holocaust?
Free will should be multiple choice, not a false dichotomy.
Awww...you're pretty.
You just don't seem to get it. You can spout pseudointellectual nonsense on a website or in a small company of friends, but you never seem to catch on that to the majority of people out there you just seem like a arrogant ass trying to cover insecurities by bashing on religion.
Typically this is where I get called a "troll" because I choose to not get into bullshit theoretical arguements where the winner is the one that uses the most adjectives and the longest words.
As you scramble backwards falling over yourself and setting up strawmen the same tired out comment comes up. "Prove there is a God."
Prove there isn't.
This is a distraction from work. In the overall scheme of things no one really cares how good of an arguement you can type. If it weren't for the internet most people wouldn't want to hear what you say. There are more important things in life.
Some day you will look back and realize how much time you wasted in a crusade to debunk religion. It's good for both sides to have these forums though, because there is no place in the outside world for either of you.
Negate that point for me by walking into a bar and saying these things.
This is the part where you either call me dumb or unread.
I'm also a guy, so it's creepy for you to say that.
I'm not the theist on an atheist site. So wrong.
WOW - what, you call the psychic hotline for that info? Armchair psychiatrists are a dime a dozen.
I don't care what people think, I care that people should think.
You get called a troll because you come in where you're not wanted, & repeat everything every other theist who's popped by in the last few years.
Now put up some evidence or sod off.
A. Please demonstrate where strawmen were employed: your street cred is no good around here, &
B. Onus falls on the believer. You make the extravagant claim? Prove it. AND
C. From context, you don't know what a strawman is.
Then go back to work.
I'm even better in person.
That's supposed to chasten me? You're on this site on the internet, & nobody really gives two hoots what you think.
Is there? Freeing people from an abject primitive barbaric anachronism is less important?
I'm 53 - so spare me the elder statesman bullshit.
Know what? Fuck you. I have these conversations regularly in realtime. If someone knocks on my door, or accosts me on the street, I tell them I'm an atheist. But it's not about me: it's about the truth.
SURPRISE! I have.
Oh wait - you thought I was some gangly teeny-bopper w/a big mouth & bad attitude, isolated from the world & had no friends.
Thus far, you've been consistently wrong.
Nice try. Typical narcissistic mind game. Set yourself up to be right if I do, & establish some sort of rapport when I don't.
You're misled, & you've read mostly garbage.
See my first reply to tbone54. I'm not saying you need a "supernatural nonsense to care about other human beings." But I am saying that if others don't care about humaniy and others choose to rape others or kill in cold-blood, than you cannot say their act is evil; their thinking in doing so is merely a product of matter, just as atheism holds to.
Also, the victims in the events/acts you have listed didn't choose that to happen; but the perpetrators did, e.g., some chose for the holocaust to take place. Moreover, I SAID that the needless sufferings KEN brought forward were a product of man's free will. See both my replies to tbone54.
JDG
You're inferring it, in an attempt to appear philosophical.
& yet surprisingly, religious folk seem to have continued to do this throughout history.
No, their act IS evil, as it isn't in the best interest of the species.
Again, we're not all moral relativists.
So someone else's 'free will' overrode other people's 'free will'? Then there is no free will.
How interesting then, that no divine intervention came forth when it went too far.
Distinct impression that all this is off your cuff, rather than objective research w/the supernatural crap subtracted.
Why do we care? Because being a decent human being involves actually caring about others, not just going through the motions because we expect a payoff.
Now there is a reply I can respect.
You give egoless answers that make sense without feeling the need to belittle a person for their beliefs.
Without religion there is still the pressure of society to be a good person. The person that does good and cares for his fellow man for personal gratification is few and far between. Religion is a far harsher form of control than society and truly more unforgiving.
Excuse me, but YOU claimed you 'owned' ken when he asked you for the evidence of your 'gawd'.
You need to check for motes in your eye.
To Chris B and ICYB,
I believe life to be a series of choices. I believe a few wise people, somewhere back in the infancy of our civilization, established the various myths we refer to as religion to help govern our primitive urges and decision-making. I further believe, as did Carlin, that religion has no place in the lives of thinking individuals. Therein lies the rub.
If all of the primitive religious beliefs were ripped away, I wonder how well the still primitive minds would govern themselves. Would we rely on the "efficiency" of our legal system to govern us? If I no longer have to worry about the wrath of any higher power, then all I have to concern myself with is the probability of being caught. If the penalty isn't too severe, I might care little about even that.
I would like to think that people could remove myth from their lives and make smart choices. But then I observe greed, self-interest, laziness, etc., and I wonder.
I am in a relationship with someone who has read the bible 13 times, which is rare among Christians. Many professed can't name all the books, let alone form sound arguments for their beliefs. Being raised in a very conservative Christian home, I was one of these beings. It has taken me years of sometimes accidental and sometimes sought discoveries, to bring me to the position of agnosticism, leaning toward aetheism. When I speak with her on the topic, knowing how people hold on to their prejudices, knowing that it took me years while somewhat looking for truth, that I question the ability of those indoctrinated to ever change. As Bertrand Russell said, "Many people would sooner die than think; In fact, they do so."
JDG,
In reading your post, I am reminded of George Carlin's quip "I like it when a lot of people die." while a rather caustic bit of humour, the view seems to suggest humans are something of an arrogant blight on this earth. Arrogant, as we have only been here a relatively short time to seem so smug, and something of a blight when you consider the destructive choices we make are beyond the scope of any other member of the animal kingdom. When you consider that life is a series of choices, and that humans (generally) persist in making poor choices, one might wonder why we should care when a number are in some way eradicated. We personally want to live on, but this is, of course, a matter of self-interest.
In all of life, there are checks and balances that we seem to feel do not pertain to us. Disease, predation, etc. are population checks in nature, though we have found ways to vaccinate against many diseases, ameliorate the effects of others, while still other technologies make it safe for us to live on and multiply, to the expense of other life on this planet. (Watch Daniel Quinn's "Food Production and Population Growth")
Let me know your thoughts, that I might learn and challenge those around me to make better choices.
God was evil, vengeful, fiery, burning, hot, explosive, loud, trembling, high, covered in ash clouds, etc....and he did fire out fiery darts of brimstone, that is made of sulphar....
Yes, god was a volcano. Sorry atheists. There is no more need in debating the ins and outs of god's character. God had no character.
http://ohmyvolcano.blogspot.com
JDG: Regardless of a "true"atheist or not,my nature causes me to care about the suffering of my fellow human beings. Thanks to the care and concern of past atheists there is freedom from slavery,women's rights and labor rights. "all suffering is caused by ignorance."
"Needless suffering" does not have to be if society is educated and people's choices reflect that. There is no indication of man's "free will" when there are serial killers and criminals;only individual with faulty wireing.
Pages