I’ve learned to look at Christianity in general, and my own faith in particular, from your perspective. After all, how will Christians ever effectively communicate what we so adamantly cling to if we can’t (or won’t) relate to those who don’t agree with us?” OK, I know that sounds a bit “evangelical” but, if the Jesus I believe in is real, I think that’s a question HE would ask!

I’ve learned that I can’t prove that there is a God. And surprisingly, to me at least, I’ve learned that he is not obvious to many who disbelieve! I’ve come to believe that the idea that all people “have a god-shaped hole in their heart” is not as true as I once thought. I mean, maybe it’s true, but there isn’t this overwhelming sense of emptiness in many non-believers. I thought there was, but after 2 ½ years in good relationships with atheists, it just doesn’t seem to be the case.

I’ve learned that I am a missionary to two vastly disparate groups of people - the atheist and the Christian church. To the atheist, my call was to narrow the chasm between atheists and Christians - to somehow make those of us who believe “less repulsive” to those of you who don’t. And to Christians, my call was to help us see the need to listen, to look at ourselves from your perspective, and to understand that the things we do sometimes don’t make much sense and sometimes actually keep you away. We should stop doing those things.

I’ve learned a LOT from you! I am a better man for it. And I am a better Christ-follower for it. My future with God has been shaped by my history with you. And for that, I THANK YOU!

I leave you with two prayers (I AM a Christian, after all :) ).

My first prayer is for the Christians you will continue to come into contact with. May the fruit of the Holy Spirit become more evident in our lives. For it isn’t what we believe that will compel atheists to follow Jesus, but the evidence (or fruit) of Jesus in our lives that will provide the attraction. If the God we believe in is real, He can draw people to Himself.

Galatians 5:22-23: But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

Christians, we need to LOVE more. We need to have more JOY. We need more PEACE. We need to exhibit more PATIENCE. We need to show more KINDNESS. We need more GOODNESS. We need more FAITHFULNESS. We need to act with more GENTLENESS. We need to have more SELF CONTROL. When others see these qualities in us, then maybe – just maybe – they’ll consider that what we believe, and the one in whom we believe, is actually true.

My prayer for atheists is a little more difficult because I know that you don’t believe any of this. But that’s OK. My prayer is simply that if the God I believe in is real, and if He somehow begins to reveal Himself to you, that you would consider it - that you would not hold the actions, lame arguments and general unattractiveness of His people against Him.

My hope is that I have fulfilled my purpose here – not to lead anyone to Christ, but simply to make the idea of following Jesus a little less ridiculous.

And with that, I bid you adieu.

Mike O

We appreciate everyone who has blogged for us on these three blogs and participated in the comments conversations. We’ll keep the existing content up even though the blogs are being closed.

The reason for closing them and opening The Practicing Church blog is that Off The Map’s focus has changed. As Jim wrote in From Mirrors to Maps on The Practicing Church blog

As Off The Map enters a new season we’re going to focus less on mirrors and more on maps, less on critiquing the church and more on energizing the church.

After this blog closes you’ll be able to find Jason online at his blog, The Magnificent Frog.

Re-reading my first post this paragraph leaps out at me.

The most relevant thing about me for this blog is that I am an atheist. I am well aware of the path that led me to atheism. More accurately, I am well aware of the path that did not lead me to theism. I think that the distinction is important. People learn religion. I never did, so I’m an atheist.

I’m still an atheist.  I’ve still not learnt religion and, if anything, I’d say I was further away from being religious than I was back then.  At least I can say that this is not for want of trying.  While I haven’t “opened my heart to Jesus” I have explored a number of aspects of faith.  I’ve had my preconceptions challenged and my view of religion’s place in society has softened somewhat.  I still balk at some things that some theists get up to and some beliefs they promote but I better understand that the vocal proponents of these things are are minority.  Religion can help society in some ways although I still think that it can also hurt us too if misapplied.

- The Trinity.
- That Jesus came to be sacrificed for our sins, and accepting Him into your heart saved you.
- The Bible as the inerrant, “God-breathed” word.
- The existence of God and divinity of Jesus.
- The existence of Heaven/afterlife with God.
- Prayer as a means to communicate with God (at least one-way communication).
- The resurrection and virgin birth and other miracles from the Bible as well.
- The duty to evangelize, as instructed by Jesus before he went back to heaven.
- Particular Christian beliefs as the only way to be saved from damnation.
- Belief that God has a plan for everything and everyone.
- Belief that being a Christian is generally a prerequisite for being a good person, or for being trustworthy.
- Belief that pastors hold a certain amount of authority as counselors and generally wise people.

Not being a Christian and not having been raised in the Christian tradition I have no way to tell what a Christian is beyond their own claims to that identity.  A Christian can even reject everything that is supernatural from the bible as Thomas Jefferson did and still identify as a Christian.  Is Christianity then a philosophy of living?  Could an atheist who follows this philosophy be a Christian if they chose to adopt this label?

These are common reasons really and not exhaustive.  If you ever choose to spend time looking at deconversion forums you’ll also note others.  What all of these boil down to and indeed what every reason for disbelief boils down to is that God is not apparent.  It is not obvious that God is real or, for those who choose to put their faith in the spiritual, which god is real.

There are some fine things in religion.  There is a message of charity and kindness, of love and acceptance.  A supernatural agency lends credence to these ideas and further motivates people who choose to follow a faith.  Religion is cause for great beauty in this world, of fine art and sublime music.  Belief in God has inspired people to do great things.  Belief in God has also inspired people to do terrible things but I’m not going to dwell on that today.

Despite the huge influence that god belief and religion have had and continue to have on people none of it proves that God is real or false.  None of it.  Logic and reason can take us down both routes if we follow them in certain ways.  Evidence can show nothing of God or everything pointing to God if we let it. We can explore our own psyches as individuals and as society and either see God in our hearts and minds or find them lacking any trace of the divine.

There are lots of people who aren’t aware of the existence of a loving God.   There are lots of people who see only their (perhaps false) gods and dismiss others as unreal.  It’s difficult to credit any one religion as being true or any one god as being true when there have been so many throughout human history.  None appears to have any greater claim to being more credible or reliable than any other.  Shouldn’t God, a true God, be more obvious?  Shouldn’t the words of the bible reveal themselves perfectly to the reader?  Shouldn’t God be apparent? 

I want to thank you for sticking with this latest series.  That’s all I have to say about reasons for disbelief except that I don’t see any of them as a choice or as a reaction.  I don’t think that people choose to believe or disbelieve but find what works well for them.  God belief doesn’t present itself to me even though I have explored the idea and I’m sure the same is true of those Christians who have explored life without God.  I think we all look at things in a way that reinforces our own notions and even when we are aware of this we cannot avoid it.  It’s just the way we’re made.

Finally I want to point out a few things that I have not given for lack of belief.  I think that the reasons I have given are reasonable, even if you do not agree with them or that some might seem weak.  I have not written anything about the actions of the Old Testament God and of religions in waging wars or annihilating whole nations, or nearly everyone if the Flood story is true.  I have not mentioned anything about the way religions treat those who do not conform to their ideas.  I have not written anything about atheists hating God.  I’m sure I don’t need to separate the action of religious men and women that may give some atheists a reason to hate the faith and the God that we do not believe in and so have no reason to despise.  In short I’ve tried to avoid the emotional response to the idea of God as a reason not to believe in God.  I don’t think that it is helpful.

Human beings are social animals.  We have evolved to function well in groups and have created ideas to reinforce social cohesion.  Religion and belief in a god who watches us and judges our actions is a way to fulfil these functions in society.  The actual non-existence or existence of a god are secondary to the social function that religion has.

In the 19th century Ludwig Feuerbach, a German philosopher, suggested that God was ”In the consciousness of the infinite, the conscious subject has for his object” or that God was merely a way for human beings to express the concept of infinity onto a supernatural being.  We conjure the anthropological form of God to explain that which eludes our explanation.

Emile Durkheim, a French sociologist in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, also expressed the idea that religion was a product of human society. Religion has many useful social functions.  Group cohesion is maintained through shared worship and shared moral ideas.  Religious ritual draws a group together in performing a social function and allows for individual members of the group to experience a mental state similar to other members.  This, in turn, creates a feedback loop where the good feelings in shared religious worship are self promoting and helpful to maintaining the group structure and integrity.

What Durkheim claimed though is that there is nothing more to religious expression than the reinforcement of group beliefs and the collective conscience.  His claim was that the supernatural simply did not exist and any religious experience arising from the ritualisation of the belief was simply the result of a heightened state of mental arousal.

Durkheim condensed religion into four major functions:

1. Disciplinary, forcing or administrating discipline
2. Cohesive, bringing people together, a strong bond
3. Vitalizing, to make more lively or vigorous, vitalise, boost spirit
4. Euphoric, a good feeling, happiness, confidence, well-being

Supernatural agents were not required.  “God is society, writ large”

Karl Marx considered the supernatural including God as illusory and religion to be a force that held human society back.  As a social institution the prevailing faith reflected the society that the dominant order in the society seeks to maintain.  The ruling classes make use of the faith of the masses to maintain their elevated position and curtail social movement and rebellion.  The majority working classes are therefore oppressed by the enforcement of a shared delusionary belief system.  The illusion that religion offers:  joys to come after death; stoicism in the face of adversity; righteousness in oppression.  These are distractions that keep the workers from forcing social upheaval to make their lives better. 

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

 - Karl Marx

He didn’t stop there though.  Marx considered the positive aspects of religion to be a theft from the common man.  Charity, honesty, beauty, self sacrifice, bravery, these positive traits and more were granted to a supernatural agency as the noblest of ideals.  In doing so humanity was robbed of all that made it good and forced to rely upon an outside force rather than upon ourselves.  We cannot achieve greatness or reach our potential while we defer our best qualities to thing apart from our own humanity.

Furthermore, by providing an illusion of happiness through religion the will to combat the social and economic oppression of the workers was denied.  He argued that only by rejecting religion could the genuine happiness of the masses be achieved.  Social wrongs were allowed to continue unopposed because the religion allowed them to occur and made these slights bearable.

I’m not sure I’d go quite as far as Marx in his assessment.  Nor do I believe that religion is a conscious tool of the ruling classes.  I can certainly see it as something that can and does prevent some people from living as fulfilling a life as they can.  Religion is also a powerful force in any society and it doesn’t take an atheist to express the view that this isn’t always a positive force.

Religion exists throughout almost all cultures on Earth.  To my mind that leads to three possible conclusions.

1. All cultures share a common origin and the central tales that form religion have become corrupted or altered since the original took place.
2. God or gods visited disparate cultures and taught them about the divine in a way that the people would best understand and appreciate.
3. The structure of the human brain lends itself to belief in deities.

The idea of a shared culture I think is safe to rule out.  I doubt that any faith would accept that their interpretation is a corruption of a central idea and I doubt that there is evidence of humanity diverging geographically at a cultural stage where gods were a commonality.  The differences in god ideas throughout history and cultures is proof that their is no central idea beyond a belief in a cosmic “something” and that is too vague to be satisfactory.

I am similarly dissatisfied with the idea of gods or a single god would visit several cultures and provide them with divine cultural myths that were at odds with one another.  It would make more sense if the myths formed part of a larger whole that cultures could link together or use to complement their own myths but this is not the case.

This leaves the idea that the “God concept” is something that is inherent to human psychology.  Psychologists have asked if “religion” is another way of expressing various psychological drives.  This opposes the idea that “religion” is a response to the existence of God or gods but is unsurprisingly opposed by those of a religious view.

Freud expressed the idea of religion as being a

system of doctrines and promises which on the one hand explains to him the riddles of this world with enviable completeness, and, on the other, assures him that a careful Providence will watch over his life and will compensate him in a future existence for any frustrations he suffers here.

Emotionally the belief in God is safe.  It provides a protective father figure to care for them in a world that is often frightening.  God provides meaning in a  world that is often confusing and seemingly without purpose.  Death holds no fear of an end to existence for those who believe in an afterlife.  A divine plan puts importance on the life of a believer as a vital (though small) component in the universe.  A divine plan also comforts a believer with the knowledge that they are cared for and respected.  Strongly held faith enables people to cope with basic human concerns and fears.

Now a theist might argue that all this is true but that doesn’t disprove God.  They might argue that we are “made” to be psychologically inclined to believe and that this is evidence of God’s mercy.  Are we not saved through faith after all?  An interesting idea.  Either way it leaves us with the the view that religion is a phenomena of psychology.  As such should we not abandon faith in order to grow as human beings to respond to the world appropriately rather than through God belief?

Returning to Sigmund Freud it is well known that he had many ideas regarding religion.  He theorized that the belief in a loving parent figure in God stemmed from early infant experience.  As babies we were utterly dependent on our parents.  Infants see parents as all powerful figures who satisfy all their needs and who heap love upon them without condition.  Many people portray their relationship with God in the same way.

Another idea that Freud wrote about was the suggestion that experiences from childhood leave people with complex emotions about their parents and themselves.  Religion and the rituals that are involved with religious worship provide a socially acceptable outlet for working these feelings through and coming to terms with them.  Of course Freud also famously described religion as a mass-delusion, mentally shaping reality to ensure personal happiness and security.

Closely linked to the idea that God is a psychological phenomena is the genetic predisposition of certain areas of our brains.  Parts of the brain are specialised to interpret and express ideas in language.  Noam Chomsky has put forward the theory our understanding of language and grammar is innate.  Could such a thing also be true for religion?  Could the human brain be genetically structured to see the divine in natural objects and events?  We certainly have very complex pattern recognition abilities that could certainly be applied in seeing the hand of God in the mundane.

Religious language is rich with these assumptions.  As a technical person I classify religious language as a kind of jargon.  Jargon is wonderful.  I love jargon.  It is a way of passing information to others in your field quickly and efficiently.  The problem that many have with jargon is that to requires a considerable amount of time and effort to comprehend and use.  You need to be proficient in the jargon to use it.  My lack of understanding of scripture may well be due to my lack of proficiency in the jargon of faith.  However, I’ve been reading and talking about religion for long enough that I should have picked up the basics by now, no matter how obtuse I am. 

There is another explanation supported by Relative Philosophy.  Religious language, according to relativism doesn’t mean anythign at all.  As it lacks any form of meaning there is no point in seeking answers to the questions that it raises.  The God question is blithely dismissed as meaningless.  Of course relativism can be contrasted by absolutism and monotheism can certainly be interpreted as a form of absolutism.  So when Genesis 1: 1 says

 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth

a philosopher can apply relativism to it and state that it is neither true nor false, that it is without meaning.

In philosophy relatism is hardly alone in dismissing the idea of God as lacking meaning.  Logical Positivism does more or less the same by applying a kind of logic test to the text.  Can an assertion be tested by an experiment or can it be true by definition?  “God” does not fall into these categories and so can be dismissed as meaningless.  There are no tests to verify the existence of God and God is not true by definition in the same way that “green is a colour” or “a square has four sides” is true.  To a logical positivists  the question is meaningless since it could not be answered true or false.

By extension any metaphysical discussion centred around God is also meaningless.  I find this to be unhelpful as I don’t like to dismiss an argument until I’ve explored it thoroughly.  Logical positivism and relativism in this regard make no effort to explore metaphysics but dismiss them utterly.  Personally I like to know what I’m rejecting and actualyl enjoy tying myself up in knots before I realise that I should have rejected the question to begin with.  That leaves us to explore what is meant by “God” and whether what we mean by “God” actually exists.  Which is much more fun.  However I can see how an apatheist could use logical positivism or relativism to dismiss these questions.

If you explore logical positivism you’ll quickly find A J Ayer’s objection to it.

We say that a sentence is factually significant to any given person, if and only if, he knows how to verify the proposition which it purports to express-that is, if he knows what observations would lead him, under certain conditions, to accept the proposition as being true, or reject is as being false.

“Freddie” acknowledged that no physical proof is ever completely conclusive.  There are margins of error, false positives, experimental error, etc to contend with not to mention the philosophical idea of deceipt that cannot ever be fully rejected.  If evidence through experimentation is not conclusive as an absolute then everything that we purport to know about the world becomes meaningless.

Those interested in the philosophy of science may also follow Richard Dawkins’ arguments on the improbability of God although he centres his point on evolution and ignores as irrelevant metaphysical questions.  A J Ayer is much neater in his dismissal:

…There can be no way of proving that the existence of a god…is even probable.
“For if the existence of such a god were probable, then the proposition that he existed would be an empirical hypothesis. And in that case it would be possible to deduce from it, and other empirical hypotheses, certain experiential propositions which were not deducible from those other hypotheses alone.
“But in fact this is not possible…For to say that “God Exists” is to make a metaphysical utterance which cannot be either true or false.

The statement in the previous topic ‘Science does a better job’ begs the question: at what? Well, obviously, at understanding the way the world works. This shouldn’t be surprising for God gave us the skills to do this and told to get on with it (Genesis 1: 26-28). That’s why He didn’t bother to put any of this understanding into scripture. Yes, sure people have tried to use the Bible to understand the way creation works, as they have done with many things. But, as that was not the Bible’s function, it’s hardly surprising that they have come up with poor answers. People have always understood that the Bible doesn’t deal with applied science (engineering principles, agricultural techniques etc) except where these have had significance in drawing closer to God (which is the whole purpose of scripture). So I’ve never understood why they should assume that the Bible was going to answer pure scientific questions, when clearly we can manage these ourselves.

Where science doesn’t do a good job is deciding how its discoveries should be used (nuclear and chemical weapons, pollution, distribution of wealth generated by application of science etc etc). Should we reject scientific endeavour, as some post-moderns wish, because of this: no of course not. Science doesn’t have the tools to answer moral and ethical issues or questions directed at our purpose and destiny, so we should not expect it to do so. Yet some challenge Christianity’s value partially on the basis that it doesn’t address questions of a scientific nature and refuses to be probed by the scientific method. In my opinion, several recent discussions on this board have shown this is a smoke screen. But dangerously, it obscures one of the most important things that Christianity is meant to do: teach us how to live rightly and give us the power to do so.

The Judeo-Christian tradition is, in fact good at answering the moral and ethical dilemmas raised by man’s scientific discoveries. Its teaching on humility, neighbour loving, stewarding of creation, the fruits of the spirit (love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control [Galatians 5:22-26]), are the answers we need. And importantly, as that passage in Galatians makes clear, it claims to provide the power of God in our lives to help us achieve these things.

Both science and Christianity speak fundamental truths into this world and we should direct our energies to seeing and using their individual strengths and understanding and applying them better, rather than trying to play one off against the other.

I want to stress at the outset that science and religion are not mutually exclusive.  I know that some consider the two to be contradictory but I believe that is because they are placing them on the same scale.  Science is a way of knowing.  Religion is a belief system.  It might be fair to compare how they benefit or limit people but comparing them directly is unfair to both.  By doing so you’re setting a false dichotomy and buying in to the sort of thinking that creationists are keen to promote.  Science and religion don’t operate on the same scale.  Having said that I’m now going to write about how faith has been used in the place of science and how, in my view, it fails to be convincing.

A better explanation

I think it is fair to say that we human beings like explanations for things.  Not knowing or not having an explanation just feels wrong.  We’re smart and arrogant enough to want to know and try to find out.  Lacking the necessary tools to discover the real reason for many things human beings have turned to religion to explain the physical universe and it was the very best explanation that existed for much of human history.  There are many questions that we don’t have answers to and many questions that we’ve only had answers to in the relatively recent past.  Religion has been able to provide answers.

However the last few centuries have seen a leap forward in science and technology that have enabled us to develop better, more logical, more consistent, more evidence based answers to many of these questions.  Many atheists say that because science has done such a good job of explaining the world then the answers that religion provides are no longer necessary.  This is of course true where we think about the natural world.  Some go further and say that as God is not a fit explanation for the natural world, or rather that religion has provided not fit explanation, then God requires explaining.  I certainly put myself in this camp.

I think that this is a good time to drop in a few definitions that I work with where it comes to God, religion and faith in order to dispel any possible confusion or upset.  God is the being or class of beings that theists take to be the creator, arbiter and observer of the world and all within it.  Religion is a human construct that many theists take to be inspired by God.  I call it a human construct in the assumption that no-one will argue the point because religion is ever changing and susceptible to the whims of man and the caprice of politics.  Religion is a way to find God and a structure to appreciate and worship God, not God itself.  I hope that we can agree on that.  Faith is something different from God and religion.  Faith is a belief in “something” that may or may not fit the definitions of religions and may or may not have any basis in personal experience or evidence.  Faith is part of the human mind and is a powerful force.  Most of the people I know in real life have some kind of faith but no religion.

Moving on. 

Before Science

Early societies or primitive societies today that rely on tradition to pass on explanations for nature that are poorly understood can be seen as the work of spirits or gods.  Bad weather, birthing problems, disease, etc could be explained as the work of angry spirits.  My father was a soldier who spent some time in Africa.  He was sold a “devil” while in Kenya.  Placing the devil outside of your tent would protect you as any devils wandering by would see that you were already tormented by a devil and they were therefore no needed.  Although it is likely that this was nothing more than a sales pitch it does highlight how mishaps could be explained by malicious spirits.

The Hebrew tribes of 1400BCE were hardly different from other post Iron Age people.  God controlled the world.  It is hardly surprising then that a mythology built up around this central idea.  When some plague tormented the enemies of the early Hebrews it was surely God’s work just as fortune affected a man was also God’s work.

The Greeks

The Greeks were culturally and philosophically advanced in comparison to others of the time.

Everything is full of Gods

Thales (624-546 BCE), Greek philosopher

Thales suggested that the gods were not merely influencing things in the real world but were an essential to the functions of nature.  Similar ideas can be found in some modern theistic ideas particularly those related to life.  The soul is said by some to be formed or granted at conception by the hand of God and the essential spark of life is often said to be divine.  In discussions centering around evolution it is often the case where the theist will focus on abiogenesis, the formation of life from unliving material, and point to the hand of the divine in forcing this change.  Similarly key points in evolution like the Cambrian explosion are often tied to divine intervention.

Astrology

If the gods are in everything then we can read their intent in the stars.  Like the gods the stars look down upon us.  This idea survives in the daily horoscopes of modern astrology as well as the more sophisticated but no more realistic charting of of the stars to map our lives.  Although many people place a great deal of stock in the readings of the heavens these ideas stem from mythology.  So clear were the markings of heaven that some Chinese emperors ruled only the highest nobility could have access to it.  Today it is seen by many to be little more than entertainment.

Puppet master

Some still hold to the idea that God orders all and operates as some kind of puppet master.  I imagine that there is some comfort in that for some but I find the idea to be more than a little disturbing.  Perhaps I simply enjoy the illusion of free will.  In a way the belief that God is able to do things and is active in the world is a belief in a divine puppet master of a kind.  If God can deliver plagues on Egypt and part the Red Sea then he can surely answer a prayer to heal a disease or inspire someone to do well in a test.

Cosmology

How do we explain the workings of the universe, it’s origin and nature?  Cosmology is a branch of physics and astronomy in modern science but it hasn’t always been that way.  Not that long ago there was an order to explaining the universe that was hierarchical in nature.  God sat at the top and commanded his angels to manage the affairs of nature.  Man was granted dominion over nature but we were still under the orders of the heavenly host.  As mythology goes it was surprisingly similar to the structure that kings and other rulers placed on their subjects.  The most wicked of creatures, the  fallen angels sat at the bottom of the hierarchy.  These rebels were the least of the least and were responsible for all kinds of wickedness.  Again rebellion was hardly a plus point for the divine rule of kings.

Why would the religious cosmologies be so rigid?  A hierarchical power structure works for a society with limited social mobility.  Everyone has a place and the power structure is well supported.  if god has decided to structure the world in such a way then it lends credence to enforcing a rigid social structure and denies efforts to reorganise society into a flatter structure that promotes fairness and equality.  If God favours a hierarchical structure then this must be perfect and acting against the rulership ordained by God is clearly wrong.  Of course the religion is a clear beneficiary of this structure.  If power trickles down from God then the church is well placed to gain from this arrangement.

Science says…

Natural laws are obeyed by all objects in the universe.  Science seeks to uncover these natural laws and express them in understandable terms, even in terms of mathematical formulae.  The universe behaves in a consistent and measurable manner that can be observed.  The laws of nature do not change at the whims of the gods pulling the strings.  Nor does the motion of the distant stars and nearby worlds change the course of history.  Men like Galileo Galilei had no particular problem with the idea of an ordered universe.  He no doubt saw it as proof of God’s engineering and skill as many people do today.  Many still see God as engineering the structure of the universe or even as the force that created the essential rules that allow our universe to function.  As I mentioned earlier this idea is not at odds with science at all.  It cannot be proven or disproven and makes no claims that fit within the limits of science as a way of knowing.  It is unknowable.

However some theists do object to the idea.  If God is merely a prime mover in the creation of the universe then there is not room for God to take action in the universe.  A perfect plan needs no adjustment but doesn’t the bible show God’s intervention time and time again?  What does this say about God’s plan?  Does the theist lose the claim that God is omnipotent, omniscient and all loving by claiming that he changes the course of his creation from time to time or is this interaction itself part of the divine plan?

How it all began

If God is a perfect prime mover in the creation of the universe and needs to take no part in it’s running as would be suggested by the omni… labels then there is still plenty credit to be given.  The universe can still be viewed as beautiful and God must assure his presence in the wonder of nature.  Science has done a poor job of explaining how anything began but a good job of explaining how things are.  Doesn’t that leave room for God as prime mover to act?

Until the mid 19th century this was certainly true.  We had no idea how humans came to exist or how the land was formed.  Advances in the study of geology told us much of how land formed over millions of years in layers.  It introduced us to the idea of fossils in the strata that corresponded to ages with their associated history.   Many fossil creatures no longer exist.  Fossils led to speculation and eventually to evolution.  Evolution explains very well how humans and every other species came to exist although it still leaves a gap right at the beginning between non-living matter and living matter.

Advances in science show an  incompatibility with a literal reading of scripture.  The world was not formed in 6 days and is more than 6,000 to 10,000 years old.  These are poetic myths that many theists take as metaphors or moral lessons much like the parables of Jesus.

Yet the explanation in evolution clearly show that no direction is given from a divine being, just that this is the way that life works.  For many this makes God redundant as a way of explaining nature.  I think that this is right as I said at the beginning.  Science is a way of knowing and religion is a belief system.  We should use science as a tool to understand and this is not the place of religion or faith.  Faith may help some to accept the way the world is but not to explain the way the world is.

And, second, granted that the major objection to belief in God is the problem of evil, does the concept of evil itself not suggest a standard of goodness or a design plan from which things deviate, so that if things ought to be a certain way (rather than just happening to be the way they are in nature), don’t such ‘injustices’ or ‘evils’ seem to suggest a moral/design plan independent of nature?

It’s an interesting twist on the old argument posed even before Epicurus wrote his famous riddle.  The argument goes like this:  If God is believed to be wholly good and omnipotent and omniscient in his power and knowledge then the existence of evil that is evident in the world creates an inconsistency.

Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then is he impotent.

Is he able, but not willing?
Then is he malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?
Whence then is evil?

Or possibly some combination of these.  Whatever the combination though we are left with a being that is not wholly good, all knowing and all powerful.  Plenty of such beings exist.  I am not all good, all knowing or all powerful.  Nor am I a god.

If you start with the premise that a God exists that has the three attributes described then the Problem of Evil is one that needs to be taken very seriously.  Responses to it should provide some useful insights into the nature of God and evil as well as the place that faith has in a universe where the problem exists.  It is unfortunate that most believers simply dismiss the question as unimportant or claim that God must have a good reason for allowing evil to exist.  I would think that exploring these reasons would be very interesting.  Indeed there is an entire branch of theology dedicated to exploring this question.

Theodicy is an attempt to answer an epistemological question without recourse to external evidence, or as we like to call it, logic.  There are several logical explorations of the Problem of Evil.  Calvanism is one that declares the absolute ruin of humanity’s ethical structure only saved by divine grace or for this problem that we are the problem and must be directed back to God’s goodness.

There are other ways to examine the problem of course.  Some branches of theodicy assert that the concept of evil is an entirely human one.  A tsunami that kills hundreds, displaces thousands and causes massive damage to property and possessions is not evil as it lacks intent.  An animal that savages a person is not evil for the same reason.  Some also say that evil is illusory because suffering and pain are illusory although those in pain probably wouldn’t agree.  Others suggest that evil is a necessary part of the goodness of God’s plan but we are unable or unwilling to see the place of evil as a way of finding goodness.

Then there is the question of free will.  Evil must exist for us to be able to choose to do good.  Without evil we would not have any ethical choices to make and could not be described as having free will.  Free will is really a whole other discussion that we could spend years exploring and it doesn’t really answer the problem of evil because it shows that God is willing to allow evil to persist and so cannot be opposed to it completely.  If that is the case then how can God be wholly good?  And we’re back to the Problem of Evil again.

Back to Paul Copin’s point that the Problem of Evil is evidence of good and a design that we deviate from.  Quite simply:  No.  The Problem of Evil only exists to challenge the assumption that there is an utterly powerful, intelligent and benevolent force in the universe.  It is a question for theists to answer.  Atheists have no reason to answer a question about Godly action or inaction.  Nor does the existence of evil point to something good to counter it…sadly.  For atheists the Problem of Evil is simply another reason why it is unlikely that a god described as wholly good, all powerful and all knowing exists.  Another reason to doubt.

This week I’ll look at some of the common proofs of God’s existence and try to explain why they are not convincing enough for me and many other atheists to make that leap of faith.  This time I want to start off by saying that I accept that these arguments are enough to convince some, they just don’t convince me.

The Argument from Design

Mike alluded to this back in the discussion about evidence when he talked about the totality of existence being evidence for God.  We live in a universe that seems perfectly suited to life.  It is beautiful and apparently orderly, at least the rules of physics remain orderly wherever we look.  Surely such a wondrous thing is proof of design?  If we can infer design then there must be a designer and only God could have designed it.   The argument for design says that the universe exists so God must exist. 

On the face of things this seems pretty reasonable except that the universe isn’t that beautiful or that orderly.  Look at evolution for example and you see massive waste with evolutionary dead ends seeing the extinction of 99% of all life that has ever lived on this planet.  You see carnivores that have to kill in order to survive.  You see lives snuffed out for no reason.  You see suffering and death, destruction and torture at every turn.  Human beings, supposedly the pinnacle of God’s creation, are wrought with flaws too numerous to mention.  We are less created in God’s image than thrown together out of whatever working parts could be found.

However, even if the universe were a perfectly ordered and beautiful thing, and I’m not disputing that we can see beauty and order within it, even if it were perfect, why should there be a designer?  Modern science has shown us that natural explanations exist for a wide variety of thinks we once thought of as designed.  Laws are devised to explain the effects of gravity, theories are formed that explain natural processed like evolution or the chemical imbalances in the brain that lead to some mental illnesses.

The “Ontological” Argument

The ontological argument uses logic and reasoning based on an a priori proof proposed by Anselm of Canterbury way back in the 11th century.  It is an argument that seeks to put God in a place where He is necessary for existence.

1. God is that entity than which nothing greater can be conceived.
2. It is greater to be necessary than not.
3. God must be necessary.
4. God necessarily exists.

Ever since I first heard this I’ve always disliked it.  I find it childish and silly and I really don’t see why anyone takes is seriously.

The First Cause Argument

Unlike the ontological argument I actually like the first cause argument.  Among my “real life” friends who hold to no particular religion but retain a belief in a mysterious “something” the first cause is a favourite reason.  “Well something must have started it all off” they say and they are quite correct.  If everything has a cause then the universe must have a cause.  isn’t it fair to say that this cause must be God?

Actually, no.  If you want to put God up as a first cause then that is just begging the question of who or what caused God.  If everything needs a cause then so does God.  If God doesn’t need a cause then why does the universe?  Saying that God is uncreated and perfect, that He somehow lives outside of the universe and outside of time, well, that isn’t satisfactory.  It’s just begging the question again.  If God was already perfect then what reason did he have for creating the universe?

Also, if the universe was caused why does that mean that God was the cause?  Perhaps Odin was the cause, perhaps Ra, perhaps some unknown, natural process.  There is room for doubt and lots of it.