Inimicus Dei

Why a God Cannot Account for Regularity

2008-11-04T19:18:00.005-05:00

God believers like to claim that the laws of Nature (or their regularity) can only be explained by a divine mind. But this makes no sense. What we call "regularity" is nothing more than the consequence of logic (in this case, identity and causality). The problem is that a god cannot create logic, for in order to do so, that god would need to exist in the first place; and existence can only make sense within a logical frame. Outside of logic, existence is... logically impossible, as both identity (existence is existence) and causality (therefore existence exists) are by-products of logic.

Let me explain: To exist, an object must be itself and not something else - a god must be a god and not something else, or, if you prefer, A must be A and A cannot be Not-A. These are the laws of identity. This means that in order for a god to be a god, it needs to exist within a logical frame, for in an illogical one, it would not follow that a god must be a god (or that A must be A), since this would be a logical conclusion. Even existence is subject to the laws of identity and causality, for without them, it would not follow that existence must exist.

Not only that, but in order for Y (say, a god) to create X, it must follow that the intent to create X will result in the creation of X, which means that the act of creating can only take place within a logical frame. Again, within an illogical frame, it does not follow that the intent to create X must lead to the creation of X. (Here I'm assuming that the creator cannot fail in its attempt to create whatever it is that it intends to create. For a fallible creator would not necessarily arrive at the desired outcome.) Therefore all acts of creation are required to take place within a logical frame.

In a nutshell: To exist requires identity, and to create requires causality. Since both these laws are logic-based, it follows that logic cannot logically be created, for the act of creating requires logic.

What all of this means is that logic is the ultimate axiom. It is irreducible. Logic is self-explanatory by necessity. To borrow from theological terminology, logic is a necessary "being" while gods, if they exist, can only be contingent - without logic, there is no identity or causality, and therefore no existence possible. And without existence, no god can exist.

Is the Concept of Necessary Being Logical?

2008-11-03T22:56:00.007-05:00

Incapable of proving God's existence, theologians have devised an argument whose purpose is to define God into existence.

The argument goes something like this: a necessary being, by virtue of it being necessary, must exist in all possible worlds. Because God is a necessary being, he must exist in all possible worlds, and since our world is a possible world, then God must exist in our world.

Now the theologian stands proud, arms crossed, convinced that he has stumped his atheist opponent. Unfortunately for him, his opponent is me. ;-) (Wow! Did you see that ego?)

So I look the theologian in the eye and give him a big smile. Our theologian friend has forgotten one important thing: logic. Let me explain.

Ask yourself this: how many possible worlds are there? The answer: there's an infinite number of them. Indeed, you can posit a world with only one atom, a world with two atoms, one with three atoms, etc. By merely counting atoms, you arrive at an infinite number of worlds. (It is important to note here that by "world" I do not necessarily mean "universe" as in the time-space/matter-energy kind of universe we live in. It could be a non material world or whatever else. The only condition is that the world must obey the laws of logic, thus the term "possible.")

Now when faced with infinity, one can be certain of one thing: everything - and I do mean everything - will happen at least once. That means that there will be a world with one atom, a world with two atoms... and - tadaaaaaa! - a world with no atoms at all! (You know where I'm going with this, don't you?)

Similarly, if you have an infinite number of possible worlds, then at least one of them will be without a god! That is required by logic. It follows then that the concept of necessary being is flawed, as it is contradicted by logic. Just as a bachelor cannot be married, a being cannot be necessary.

Therefore, God's existence has not been demonstrated.

QED

About God Existing Necessarily...

2008-06-23T22:14:00.015-04:00

Theologians like to think that their god cannot not exist. So quite a while ago they did a cool thing - they defined their god into existence!

The argument goes something like this: if God did not exist, he (*) would be imperfect. But since he is perfect, he cannot not exist. If God cannot not exist, then he is a necessary being, and so he must exist necessarily. (You gotta love theologians!)

Now I could explain to you why it does not follow that perfection requires existence, something that took centuries for philosophers to realise (**) but that will be for another time. Instead, I will humour the theologians, accept their assumption that God must exist in order to be perfect, and show you how the argument shoots itself in the foot.

When someone tells me that God must exist because he is a necessary being, the question I ask them is "by virtue of what?" Why, by virtue of logic, of course! For it is logic that dictates that if God is a necessary being, then he must exist necessarily. Without logic, there would be no link between "God is a necessary being" and "therefore he must exist." In other words, it is logic that commands that God must exist necessarily.

Because the necessary existence of God is commanded by logic, it follows that logic must precede God, for without logic, it would not follow that a necessary being must exist necessarily.

Problem: But if logic precedes God, then God is not above all things - there is something that exists beyond God! And since the Judeo-Christian god is defined as being above all things (in the sense that he created everything) then by definition, the Judeo-Christian god cannot exist, for he could not have created that which is responsible for his own existence - logic!

So it seems that theologians of the Judeo-Christian kind cannot have their cake and eat it too: in order for God to exist necessarily, he must be preceded by logic, but if he is preceded by logic, then he is not above all things. And if he is not above all things, then he does not exist! QED

Ironically, it seems that by trying to define their god into existence, theologians have actually defined him out of it!

(*) Normally, I use the pronoun "it" when referring to a god. However, I thought it created confusion, so I opted for "he" instead.

(**) The reason why this took so long is that people often make the mistake of merely looking at the validity of an argument, that is whether the conclusion follows from the premise(s). But as I explained in a previous post (see here) the first thing one must do when looking at a theistic argument is to look for the premises. Here theologians were merely assuming that perfection required existence, but it does not follow.

A Little Probability

2008-05-25T02:51:00.023-04:00

Here's a cool trick to determine the likelihood of a god's existence.

There are two categories of objects - those that exist and those that do not. In turn, objects that exist can be grouped into two categories - those whose existence is proven (cars, trees, planets, etc.) and those whose existence is unproven (ghosts, gods, an intelligent George W. Bush, etc.).

Objects whose existence is unproven are infinite in number, as they include objects that cannot exist, such as square circles, married bachelors, planets with infinite radii, etc. However, objects that do exist are very small in number as they exclude objects that cannot exist, as well as objects whose existence is possible but which do not exist nonetheless.

Now what this means is that if an object has not yet been proven to exist, one would be better off assuming that said object belongs in the category of objects that do not exist, as this category is infinite in number.

Even if one assumed that there were a thousand quintillion objects in existence (good luck counting them!) that would still be a small number compared to infinity.

Here is an analogy. Imagine that you are in a room containing one thousand balls. Ten of these balls are red (1%) while the rest of them are blue (99%). Now suppose you were asked to walk blindfolded among the balls and then pick one up at random. Since you are blindfolded, you have no idea what colour the ball is that you picked up. Then you are asked to guess the colour of the ball you are holding in your hand. What is your best bet? Well, since virtually all of the balls are blue (99%) it is very likely that the ball you picked up is blue.

The same applies when you are trying to determine whether an object is existent or non-existent - since the category of non-existing objects is so much bigger (it is infinite) than the category of existing objects (which is finite) it is a lot more likely that the object you are thinking of belongs in the first category (non-existing objects).

For this reason, it is always wiser to assume that an object whose existence has not been demonstrated is non-existent. Until proven wrong, of course!

Does the Universe Need a Cause?

2008-05-04T23:45:00.020-04:00

The other day, I ran across some guy who was arguing that the Universe cannot account (even in theory) for its own existence. But as I pointed out to him, this (convenient) assumption is merely a logical consequence of the Theist's belief that the Universe is caused in the first place: if a god caused the Universe to exist, then the universe could not have been its own cause. QED. Or so the Theist believes.

When debating Theists, Atheists should always remember this: Theists and Atheists don't use the same premises. So as a general rule, all Atheists have to do is identify the premises, evaluate them, get rid of the bad ones, and voilà! Problem solved!

Theists like to claim that the Universe must have a cause since all effects have a cause. But here is the problem: how does the Theist figure that causality applies to the Universe? (Just because the balls in a box are red, it does not follow that the box must be red also.) He does so by first assuming there is something beyond the Universe. Then, and only then, can he apply causality to the Universe: there is something beyond the Universe from which causality was applied and which resulted in the "creation" of the Universe. But how does the Theist know there is something beyond the Universe? Because if the Universe has a cause then, by logic, the said cause must be external to the Universe. Therefore, there must be something beyond the Universe which caused the Universe to exist! We have now come full circle and plunged into the deep waters of fallacious theology...

Here, the Theist might reply that while he is indeed assuming that there is something beyond the Universe, I, on the other hand, am assuming that there is not, and therefore my position is no better than his. But there is something wrong with that reasoning: if an assumption is not warranted then, by logic, its rejection is! If the claim that there is an invisible elephant in my living room is not warranted, then the claim that there is no such elephant in my living room is, by default, warranted!

Now let's go back to the problem of the caused Universe. Look at it this way: what do we know about causality? Well, causality is observed (*). Fine. But why? Because events take place that are not simultaneous. These events are either material or energetic. That's it! That's all we know! We have never witnessed anything that wasn't energy or matter. Add to that the fact that we have not witnessed every single event that has taken place in the history of the Universe (that alone is sufficient to reject the universality of causality as an axiom).

Now since (causal) events require matter or energy, it follows that without matter or energy, there would be no causal events. If there are no causal events, then there is no causality.

In other words, I contend that causality is an emerging property of the Universe. If, as modern cosmology tends to support, the Big Bang is the origin of matter, energy and space-time, then by logic it follows that so is causality. For without space there can be no matter or energy, and without time, there can be no causal events since there would be no time available to elapse between an effect and its cause.

If the Theist accuses me of merely making assumptions, I will remind him that there is nothing wrong with making assumptions provided that the assumptions are grounded. One has to start somewhere and the best place to start is with what we know. Since we do not know that there is something beyond the Universe, it is unwarranted to assume that there is.

(*) According to Quantum mechanic, causality does not always apply. Although this supports my point, I will ignore it as a matter of clarity.

The Virus of Religion

2008-04-12T21:15:00.005-04:00

Have you ever thought of comparing religion to a virus? Think about it.

Like a virus, religion is caught by proximity - that is, if you live in a Muslim environment, you'll catch the Islam virus; if you live in a Christian environment, you'll catch the Christianity virus. That is why religions are distributed geographically;

Just like you can recover from a viral infection, you can recover from religion - everyday, Atheists become infected by religion and everyday, religionists recover from religion and become Atheists;

Like a virus, religion has a negative effect on a person's body: once infected, their brain starts working badly. It is as if they suddenly lose the ability to reason properly. Circular reasoning, question begging and non sequitur become second nature. Conversely, when a religionist recovers from his illness, he starts reasoning properly all of a sudden, his brain now free to function as it was intended to;

And just like there is a vaccine against viruses, there is a vaccine against religion: the absence of religious proximity - raise a child in a completely religion-free environment, and you'll have an Atheist.

And trust me, god believers know that!

Why Christians Cannot Be Moral

2008-04-01T02:58:00.027-04:00

According to many Christians, although Atheists can be moral, they cannot rest their morality on anything objective. In other words, if there is no supreme law-giver, then morality is relative.

Although it is easy for an Atheist to prove that wrong (part of our behaviour is genetic and therefore subject to Natural Selection) it is often more interesting to turn the table on the Christian: I contend that the Christian's morality code rests on a pile of subjective interpretations!

The problem stems from the fact that Christian morality comes from the Bible (*). But the Bible is not a DVD operating manual: it needs to be interpreted. Take the 5th commandment, for instance. It reads as "Thou shalt not kill." What? You don't agree? Maybe you read the commandment as "Thou shalt not murder" then? Bingo! You've won your first cigar!

But what is murder? Normally, murder is defined as the deliberate and unlawful killing of a human being. It is first and foremost a legal term. You do not murder a fly. If you accidentally run over a kid with your car and kill him, it is not murder.

Now what if tomorrow your government changed the law so that the deliberate killing of homosexuals becomes legal. Then by definition, if you killed your gay neighbour, that wouldn't be murder, would it? Here, we encounter one of the problems inherent to biblical morality - it changes with the law. Where's the objectivity in that?

But maybe, if you're a Christian, you'll try to get out of this predicament by redefining the word "murder." Same problem: you are subjectively writing your own definitions to make the commandment fit what you already believe to be (im)moral. Same problem if you choose among a pre-existing set of definitions.

Let's consider death penalty. If you read the aforementioned commandment as "Thou shalt not kill," then death penalty is immoral. But if you read it as "Thou shalt not murder," then it depends: how do you define murder? If you define it as "the deliberate and unlawful killing of a human being," then death penalty is not immoral, since it is state-sanctioned, and therefore lawful (provided the execution is done by the state and in accordance with the law). But then, as I remarked above, morality becomes subject to the law, so that what is (im)moral today may not be (im)moral tomorrow. This is subjective morality.

If you define murder as "the deliberate and unnecessary killing of a human being (**)" then death penalty is immoral since it is unnecessary. However it can become necessary under certain conditions, for instance in the absence of a means to protect society from a vicious member, in which case it would be moral! And it doesn't end there - a few weeks ago I was listening to a debate where a Christian made the claim (unhesitantly!) that death penalty had nothing to do with morality! If this does not convince you that Christian morality is subjective, I honestly don't know what will...

The second problem has to do with what is called the Euthyphro dilemma: is something moral because the gods say so, or rather is there some kind of objective morality, in which case the gods are merely passing the information along to us?

If it is the former, then morality is subject to the whims of the gods, and then your morality is in deep trouble: what if tomorrow your god asks you to kill your atheist neighbour? Would that be good or bad? And if it is the latter, then belief in a god is irrelevant and unnecessary since morality does not depend on them.

(*) Actually this is not completely true - see my post http://inimicusdei.blogspot.com/2007/11/i-love-that-dawkins-guy.html

(**) Why unnecessary? To allow for self-defence - if someone's got to die, it might as well be the aggressor! ;-)

The Circularity of Agnosticism

2007-11-04T01:41:00.000-05:00

Sometimes, you'll hear people say that one cannot know for sure whether gods exist, and so one should withhold judgement and avoid labels such as Theist or Atheist. These people are called "Agnostics." According to Agnostics, the assumption that gods do not exist is unwarranted because, well, it's just an assumption. Since Theism also rests on an assumption, it is just as unacceptable to them.

But is Agnosticism really better? The answer to that question is a resounding "no!" If you're an Agnostic, you're probably quite surprised to hear that, so let me explain.

According to Agnosticism, there are things from which it is impossible, even in theory, to obtain knowledge. Gods are a good example. This includes whether or not they exist. But when an Agnostic makes that claim, because that's what it is, a claim, I always give him the same response: How do you know?

Indeed, it seems that Agnostics are guilty of the same "sin" as the Theist and the Atheist: they make a claim that is, even in principle, indefensible. For the claim that one cannot know for sure cannot be verified. How does one know exactly that there exists no means that would allow a person to know for certain whether or not gods exist? Many god believers certainly believe that there is such a means. Consider the Christian, for example, who claims to have "felt" the presence of his god. Of course, as nonbelievers, we simply dismiss that as wishful thinking from the part of the Christian, who is simply accused of interpreting his feeling according to his religious beliefs. After all, wouldn't he have "felt" the presence of the Great Goddess had he been a Pagan?

But what if the Christian is right. What if there is at least one god out there who can, at will, make his presence known in such a way that the person thus "touched" can have no doubt about the reality of the said god. Such a means would certainly provide factual information about gods, or at the very least, about the reality of their existence.

Now if such a means were real, would it not then follow that Agnosticism is wrong, since the claim that there exists no such means would be wrong? And even if one could prove that that particular means is not real, it would still not follow that Agnosticism is true.

So not only Agnostics assume that a means like "feeling" the presence of a god is not real, they also assume that there exists in fact no means by which one could obtain factual knowledge about gods. Thus Agnostics are guilty of two "sins," that is they are making two claims that they cannot verify, which contradicts the core principle of Agnosticism - withholding judgement in absence of certainty. And then the Agnostic turns around and accuses the Atheist of making an unwarranted (according to Agnostics that is) assumption - that gods do not exist - for the mere reason that it is but an assumption!

And that's where the problem lies. For the Agnostic is resting his position - that one cannot know for sure - on the assumption that he knows for sure... that he cannot know for sure! In essence, this means that Agnosticism rests on the very principle - assumption of nonexistence - that it dismisses! Where the Atheist applies this principle to gods, the Agnostic applies it to means of acquiring knowledge. And thus, Agnosticism shoots itself in the foot! We can now see that it is circular, as Agnosticism becomes tenable only if one assumes it to be true from the start!

Essentially, what this means is that in order to be consistent with themselves, Agnostics should apply Agnosticism to Agnosticism itself, making the very concept of Agnosticism self-defeating!

Intelligent Design and Predictions

2007-11-04T01:35:00.000-05:00

Some ID proponents claim that Intelligent Design makes predictions. One of those predictions is that there is no such thing as junk DNA. So all we have to do is wait until all DNA is found to have an actual function, and voilà! ID is proven (according to them, that is). But there are two problems with that reasoning.

First, that prediction requires the - unwarranted - assumption that the designer is capable of perfection. But how does one know that? Designists keep telling us that ID says nothing as to who or what the designer is, let alone what "he" is capable of, or what his intentions are. How do they know that he is capable of creating an extremely complex genetic programme without inadvertently introducing errors? It seems to me that one wouldn't be worse off making the opposite prediction - that there will be junk DNA.

The other problem lies in the other - and still unwarranted - assumption that one can know the intentions of the designer. Assume that he is capable of writing an error-free genetic programme. How do you know he won't introduce erroneous codes on purpose for reasons only known to him? Or maybe he created some basic life-forms and then let them evolve through purely naturalistic processes à la natural selection?

I find it telling that ID proponents choose the prediction that happens to support an infallible designer over the one that supports a fallible one! Maybe ID proponents are not as objective as they think they are after all...

One of the biggest problems with ID is that it is a "theory" that involves a being who is capable of making decisions. Therefore one needs to introduce an "arbitrariness factor" into the theory that essentially prevents the making of any prediction; and the more capable the designer, the larger the value of that arbitrariness factor, since the number of possibilities at the disposal of the designer increases with his capability. In other words, because a god is more capable than a natural being, he has more possibilities at his disposal, thus making it all the more difficult to predict his choices, particularly when one is unaware of his intentions.

Evolution and the Cost of Intelligence

2007-11-04T01:28:00.000-05:00

I was on some forum the other day (don't remember which one, sorry) and there was a discussion about Evolution. There was a Creationist there who thought he had found a flaw in the theory. What a surprise! But as it turned out, his flaw was simply one of those fallacies the religious kind use all the time, in this case an "argument from incredulity." You know, like, if I can't explain it, nobody else can! How incredibly arrogant!

Now his question was: since traits which are advantageous to an individual come with a cost, and seeing as a level of intelligence as high as ours must be very costly, how come such a high level of intelligence got selected for in the first place? What "purpose" did it play that was so important that the cost seemed to be of no consequence?

If our friend the Creationist had been less ignorant, he would have known this: in the wonderful world of animals, we puny human beings are among the feeblest! We're not particularly strong (in fact, we're among the weakest!), we have no claws, no teeth that can be used to defend ourselves against a predator, and we don't run that fast. In a direct attack against, say, a tiger, we stand no chance! Our only hope lies not in physically fighting the animal, but in strategizing.

Imagine you're one of our long gone ancestors. You live in a small group of individuals, at the mercy of predators. Now let's say that you're slightly more intelligent than your puny fellow tribesmen. It might have occurred to you, being a little more intelligent than the others, that when a predator kills one of you, the rest of you are safe.

Now here's the brilliant idea you might have come up with: What if you hung out with a guy that is smaller than you, say a few inches shorter. And what if you started running in the same direction as him during an attack? Then, if the tiger runs in your direction, it is likely to catch your "friend" instead of you, seeing as he will be lagging behind (remember that you're taller than him, and so you will outrun him). That way, the tiger will kill him rather than you! And you live to see another day! Ain't it great to be clever?

If being more intelligent gives you an edge in the cruel game of survival, then being more intelligent will translate as an advantage rather than an inconvenience. In other words, if you're stupid, your genes don't have much chance of being passed on to the next generation. Therefore, in our case, a lack of intelligence ends up costing more than a surplus of it.

Now in our example, it is possible that because you'll live longer, in the long run you'll end up having more kids than your fellow tribesmen, say four instead of one. If you have four times as many kids as your neighbours, then you have won Evolution's race. That, my friend, is how Evolution works. Causality. If your genes allow you to reproduce more than your peers, then your genes are going to be overrepresented in the next generation, and then the next, and the next... In the long run, it is people like our hypothetical "you" that contributes to the evolution of the species.

But then again, if you're a Creationist, you are highly unlikely to be in that category.

Thank the (imaginary) gods!

The Creationist's Unreasonable Stance

2007-11-04T01:22:00.000-05:00

The thing that disturbes me the most about the Evolution/Creationism debate is the apparent lack of any reasoning capability from the part of the Creationist. I mean, being a Creationist per se is one thing, but assuming that a scientific theory like the theory of Evolution could be so flawed that any dilettante could see it, while the millions of experts that have studied it and worked with it for the past 150 years or so wouldn't, is downright retarded!

When you're sick, don't you go to a doctor? Why not an architect? If an engineer, a theologian, a lawyer or a car salesman could be as expert in biology as a biologist, doesn't it stand to reason that an architect could be just as good in medicine as a doctor? The answer is obviously No. Even the Creationist agrees that experts know more than non-experts. It's logical. It's reasonable. And when you make an exception for a particular field, like biology, you're just being logically inconsistent. And if you don't get it, then you're mentally disturbed!

The logical and reasonable stance to take when faced with a scientific theory you think makes no sense, is to assume that the problem lies not with the theory itself, but with your understanding of it. I mean, if the doctor that's about to inoculate my son against the flu tells me he's injecting him with the flu virus, I'm not gonna go: "Hello? Anyone home? Man, those doctors are so stupid!" Instead, I'm going to assume there's something wrong with my medical knowledge.

You should also ask yourself where you got your info about Evolution. Could it be from your favourite Creationist website? If you want to know about Evolution, you go to a pro-Evolution website. I mean, would you go to a Muslim website to learn about Christianity? Now that would be moronic, wouldn't it?

The fact is, people do not criticize Evolution because it is a flawed theory - it is not! - but because it contradicts their religious beliefs. Duh! Tell me an Atheist you know recently became a god believer, and I'll tell you whether he now has a problem with Evolution as soon as I know what denomination he's joined! If he's become a Catholic, no problem; he'll stick to Evolution. But if you tell me he's become a conservative Lutheran, then I'll bet everything I own that he's now a Creationist!

End of rant.

About Atheism Being a Belief...

2007-11-04T01:11:00.000-05:00

Every once in a while, you'll hear a god believer claim that Atheism is a belief and that therefore it requires just as much faith as Theism. Well, I suppose this gives the believer the impression that his stance is just as (ir)rational as the Atheist's. I guess you could call it wishful thinking. However, a close examination will show that this claim is unreasonable and untrue. First, let's not confuse belief with Belief. In this post, I will be referring to Belief with a capital "B." Like belief in the existence of gods. In this sense, a belief is a strong opinion with regards to the truth of a proposition, for instance, that there exists a god. Second, a belief is by definition unproven. If you believe in the existence of gods, that's precisely because you have no evidence that such creatures exist. Would you say "I believe in elephants?" Of course not! Elephants aren't a belief. They actually exist and there is evidence for their existence. So we have established two things: a belief is a strong opinion, and the word "belief" applies only in the absence of evidence.

Now let's look at the claim that Atheism is a belief. First, Atheism isn't a positive opinion. Atheists do not make the claim that there exists something, but rather that a particular thing does NOT exist. This is an important distinction as we will see later.

So Atheism is the position that there are no gods because there is no evidence that gods exist. In other words, Atheism is merely an acknowledgment of the fact that there is no evidence for the existence of gods. Nothing more.

"But," some will say, "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence!" Actually, yes and no. There are two sides to consider here. First, there is the case where an object exists without us having evidence for its existence. For instance, there might be a loaf of bread in my refrigerator, but you won't know about it until you open the door to my fridge and look. And until you do that, indeed you'll have no evidence that there is bread in my fridge. However, in this case the evidence is only absent because you haven't looked for it. But once you've opened the door, the evidence will jump in your face (literally if the bread is 6 months old).

However, if you open the door to the refrigerator, take a good look, and find that there is no bread in the fridge, then there is an absence of evidence which indeed adds up to evidence of absence. As Julian Baggini explains in his book "Atheism: A Very Short Introduction": "Indeed, it is hard to see what other evidence there could be for something not being there other than the failure to find any evidence that it is there. Something which does not exist leaves no mark, so it can only be an absence of marks of its existence that can provide evidence for its non-existence." (*)

Now we can proceed to the next stage: is Atheism a faith position? The answer is a resounding No. But many people believe that if there is no absolute proof that gods do not exist, faith must be required to make the claim that gods don't exist, just as faith is required to make the claim that they do. This comes from the erroneous assumption that all opinions or beliefs are equal. They are not.

Surely the god believer would agree that the belief "if I jump down the Grand Canyon I will die" is more reasonable than the belief "if I jump down the Grand Canyon I will land unscathed." And yet, until I actually jump, it could go either way! For it is indeed possible, although very unlikely, that through a string of lucky circumstances I do end up at the bottom of the Grand Canyon on my own two feet without a scratch. "All" it would take is a draft at the right moment, with the right force, in the right direction and for the right amount of time to slow down my fall. And it is precisely because these circumstances are highly unlikely that the belief "if I jump down the Grand Canyon I will land unscathed" is not very rational. While no faith is needed to "believe" that such a fall would kill me, a lot of it is required to believe that it would not!

What this means is that in our example, I have good grounds for believing that jumping would result in my dying. My "belief" is said to be "grounded." It is supported by reason (my knowledge of how the world works) and experience. As for the belief that I would land unscathed, it is contradicted both by reason and by experience: we know about gravity and how it works, and we know by experience (our own and other people's) that when a person falls from a certain height, they will hurt themselves or even die. In other words, faith is required either when there is no evidence for one's belief or when one's belief goes contrary to the evidence. That is not the case of Atheism!

For you see, Atheism is not contradicted by the evidence: there is no evidence that gods exist! Of course, as I explained above, absence of evidence does not necessarily mean evidence of absence, but without the evidence, why assume existence in the first place? Therefore Atheism isn't a faith position; it's a reasonable one. In other words, while the absence of evidence for the existence of gods supports Atheism, it contradicts Theism!

In fact, refraining yourself from believing in a proposition in the absence of evidence is the default position. That's the reason why people don't believe in all sorts of things, although there may exist no proof for their non-existence. Do you believe in the Greek gods? In unicorns? That there is an alien civilization hiding underneath the surface of Mars? Of course not. And yet, if pushed to provide evidence for the assumed falsity of those propositions, you wouldn't know how to go about it! We just don't believe in something – normally – unless we have good reasons to. You believe in God because you were raised by parents who believed in God. If your parents believed in the Greek gods, you'd believe in them too. There's a reason why religions are spread out geographically rather than randomly. You know what they say: had you been born and raised in Saudi Arabia, you'd be a Muslim. And you'd swear that Islam is the one true faith! If you'd been raised in a culture whose members believed in the existence of unicorns, you'd believe in unicorns too! This is not an absolute of course. But it does apply to the vast majority of people. The power of indoctrination is unsurpassed.

And if you're still not convinced, ask yourself this: How much faith does it take you to disbelieve in fairies?

I rest my case!

(*) BAGGINI, Julian; Atheism: A Very Short Introduction, 2003, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-280424-3, page 16

The Problem with Islam

2007-11-04T01:05:00.000-05:00

I often hear people complain about the threats of Islam. But there is nothing especially dangerous about Islam. The Koran is no worse than the Old Testament when it comes to violence and mayhem. In fact, the problem has absolutely nothing to do with Koranic doctrines. Liberal Muslims have no difficulty finding interpretations to the "problematic" passages in the Koran, no more than the liberal Jews or Christians have a problem with interpreting the "problematic" verses in the Old Testament.

The problem with Islam comes from the fact that the vast majority of Muslims that live in our democracies are immigrants whose lands of origin are essentially (or outright!) theocracies. In those countries, whether it be Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan or any other similar crackpot joint, there is no such thing as human rights, equality, Freedom of Speech, or even Reason. (*) So when these people come to our countries, they can't help bringing their despicable intolerant moral crap with them.

Once here, they live in ghettos, you know, to separate themselves from us infidels, and teach their kids that we're evil. And what do you do with evil? That's right: You eradicate it! Ergo, terrorism! Now that was easy!

Of course, they won't hesitate to take advantage of our laws and democratic values to obtain advantages, including those they never had in their own countries of origin. I don't think we Westerners are nice people. I think we're downright stupid. Maybe we're only getting what we deserve.

What we must do is prevent these retarded lunatics from creating their own communities and live in almost complete isolation. They have to meddle with us in order to fit. Now if you don't immerse yourself in the fundamental democratic values from childhood, you'll end up living in a world of your own, a world where intolerance is matched only by stupidity. Now I'm not saying that our values are the only ones that work. I'm only saying that their values don't fit with ours. Apples with apples. Lemons with lemons. You can't live with one foot in Canada and the other one in Afghanistan. You have to choose. Now if I go to Iraq, I won't walk the streets shouting "Allah sucks!" Well OK, there's the fact that I don't want to die, but you get the point. ;-)

Now bring me a liberal Muslim any time, and I will gladly talk with them for hours! That's what democracies are all about...

(*) In 1993, a fatwa was issued by Sheik Abdel-Aziz Ibn Baaz, the supreme religious authority of Saudi Arabia, according to whom the Earth is flat! Take that you moronic geologists! If you disagree, well too bad, but that means you're an Atheist. And you don't want to know what they do to Atheists over there, trust me!

On Faith and Responsability

2007-11-04T01:56:00.001-04:00

I live in Canada. Over here we have a little concept that we like to call "reasonable accommodations." That means that we try to give some slack to people of different cultures. Most of the time, it has to do with religious faith. For instance, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled (March 2, 2006) that little Sikh boys may wear a kirpan (a kind of ceremonial dagger) at school, provided the dagger is worn under the clothes and sewn into its sheath. (*)

Unfortunately, some people are trying to take advantage of this privilege. Recently for instance, a man brought his son to a public swimming pool and intended to watch his kid have fun, like normal parents like to do. But there was a problem. You see, there was a woman in the pool. A Muslim woman. And she wasn't to keen on having a man in this public place look at her. Now the man wasn't staring at her or anything. It was just that he "could" see her. So she did what any disrespectful asshole immigrant would do: she asked that the man be removed from the premises! Of course this ended up in a huge backlash against the so called "reasonable" accommodations in general, and religious immigrants of a certain kind in particular, most newspaper letters and articles vehemently denouncing the very concept of reasonable accommodations itself.

This brings me to the purpose of this post. You see, whenever possible, I like to remind religious folks that their faith is, of course, a personal matter but, more importantly, that their faith is first and foremost a personal CHOICE! No one put a gun to their head and said: "Believe this or that or you'll die!" The least I'll expect from a person that makes a choice as to what they will or will not believe, is that they take responsibility for that choice. Is it too much to ask? Now I'm an Atheist, but you won't see me petition for the removal of churches, synagogues or any other kind of temple because their sight offends me! If you choose to be a Muslim, then live in a Muslim country. Or if you move in a secular country like Canada, accept the responsibility that comes with choosing (freely!) to live in a secular country where the fundamental values are in all likelihood very different from those of your faith. Canada isn't a theocracy. Its fundamental values are secular and its laws reflect that. That means if you don't want to be seen by men in a public place, stay home! Your freedom stops where the freedom of others begins. Personally, I will never bow to other people's religious wishes. I will use force before I do that. Even deadly force if that's the only way. For I may not have many ideals, but I do believe fervently that democracy is worth fighting for.

But don't you make the mistake of believing that this perverse application of reasonable accommodations is typical only of immigrants. We have such selfish assholes even among our own. Here is a case in point. A few months ago, the Mayor of the city of Laval (that's near Montreal) was ordered by the Human Rights Tribunal to cease his practise of beginning the public sittings of City Council with a prayer. To my knowledge, he hasn't stopped (as to the writing of this post). Why would he? As he explained in an interview for a French radio station (FM 93,3) shortly after the ruling, he won't stop because "pour moi, c'est important!" (translation: It's important to ME!). We recognize here the typical selfishness of these people as well as their lack of respect for others. To hell with human rights! I'm infallible and you shall all bow before me! Religious freedom is fine... provided it applies exclusively to their own religion!

Another example that comes to mind is that of homosexuality. It is a well known fact that a great number of the highly religious view homosexuality as somehow wrong. These religious and intolerant people will often spare no means to get what they want. For instance, Canadian Bishop Fred Henry has once threatened to excommunicate (now former) Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin if he kept supporting gay marriage. To me, that is an intolerable act. An outright act of blackmail that has nothing to do whatsoever with Freedom of Speech. That Bishop belongs in prison! This is a perfect example that democracy and religious faith are not of the same breed. Will we have to elect Atheist candidates to avoid such interference? What if the Church starts threatening religious politicians of excommunication if they don’t forbid Atheism? Or put an end to human rights? Or abortion? Or the right for women to vote? OK, I'm exaggerating a little, but you see the point.

If a person freely chooses a faith that proclaims the immorality of such things as homosexuality, then it is that person's problem. Not society's. Not the homosexuals'. And no, I'm not gay. But being an Atheist, I understand what it means to be in the minority. Someone once said (not verbatim) "if you work hard on depriving others of their rights, don't be surprised the day they try depriving you of yours." Food for thought.

(*) See the full story here: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/kirpan/

What Atheism Is Not

2007-11-04T01:53:00.000-04:00

From time to time, I come across people who claim they are neither Theist nor Atheist. Apparently, they believe that it is impossible to have an opinion on the existence of gods unless they can know for certain whether or not they exist. But this is a category error.

The problem stems from the fact that some people believe that an Atheist is a person who is certain that gods do not exist. This is a strawman. In fact, Atheist thinkers have coined two terms to refer to Atheists, according to whether they are certain that gods do not exist or whether they are willing to accept that gods might exist after all. When the Atheist asserts certainty, he is said to be a "strong" Atheist. When he is admitting the possibility of being wrong, he is called a "weak" Atheist. Note that "strong" and "weak" do not refer to the person's character, but rather to the "intensity" of the position.

Atheism (as well as Theism) is what philosophers call a metaphysical stance. It is essentially a position on the existence or nonexistence of an object. Agnosticism is an epistemological stance and thus has to do with a person's position with regards to knowledge. Thus Atheism and Agnosticism belong to two distinct categories. This also means that one can be both an Atheist and an Agnostic.

To be an Atheist, all a person needs to do is not believe in the existence of gods. The logic is simple: you either believe or you don't! That a person is undecided is thus irrelevant, for if one has not decided to believe, then one is not a believer! QED

This is why the claim that one can be neither a Theist nor an Atheist makes no sense. If you don't believe, then you disbelieve. Disbelief is the default position. Why? Because although you can disbelieve in a concept without being aware of it, you cannot, by logic, believe in a concept unless you are aware of it!

Take for instance a newborn baby. Would it be possible to say that this baby believes in Shiva, one of the many Hindu gods and goddesses? The answer is of course "no." To believe in Shiva, that baby would have to be made aware of the concept of Shiva. That is a precondition. It then follows that since the baby does not believe in Shiva, he is an unbeliever. As I already explained, one does not have to be aware of a concept in order to not believe in it. And again, the moment a person does not hold a belief in an object, that person automatically finds themselves in the camp of the unbelievers.

So we are back to square one: if you do not believe, you're an unbeliever. And since people who are undecided are not believers, they are unbelievers. So by logic, if a person has not decided whether to believe in the existence of gods or not, they are Atheists by default. This is not my personal opinion - this is logic.

Of course, some people have a problem with that. Christians, for instance, usually associate Atheism with, well, pretty much everything that is negative, and so they are rather reluctant - that's a euphemism! - to call a baby an Atheist. But that's their problem. Reality won't change because they don't like it.

Some Agnostics also have a problem with being called Atheists, but for different reasons. Sometimes, Agnostics simply refuse to label themselves Atheists because of the negative connotation that comes with the word. Other times, it is for mere pedantry, i.e. because of the mistaken belief that Agnosticism is philosophically superior to Atheism. (For an explanation as to why it is not so, see my other post entitled The Circularity of Agnosticism.)

What all of this means, is that one can be a Theist or an Atheist and an Agnostic. This gives us four possibilities -

One can be:

An agnostic Theist - a person who believes in the existence of gods, but is of the opinion that one cannot know anything about them. In my experience, few people hold that position;
An agnostic Atheist - also called a "weak Atheist"; a person who does not believe in the existence of gods, but who nonetheless thinks that one cannot know for sure whether or not they exist. It is very likely that most Atheists belong in this category;
A Theist - A person who believes in the existence of gods and who believes that it is possible to obtain information about them, for example through revelation, personal experience, prayer, etc. A popular stance since it is the position of Judaism, Christianity and Islam;
A strong Atheist - a person who does not believe in the existence of gods and who thinks that there is no doubt about their nonexistence. In my experience, few Atheists would consider this position legitimate.

Take your pick!

I Love That Dawkins Guy!

2007-11-04T01:46:00.000-04:00

Well, I'll start with a small post. After all, that Christian holiday they call Christmas has just ended, and I'm kind of wasted (by that I mean I'm tired, as I don't drink). Yep! I celebrate Christmas! Weird, ain't it? Well, the way I see it, there isn't much of anything religious about Christmas anymore... I mean, Christians certainly are complaining that it is just about partying nowadays. So get off my back, all right! ;-)

Well, right now I'm reading Richard Dawkins's book "The God Delusion." I have to admit it's a good one. I realised a short while ago that for many people, that book is probably going to be the first thing they'll ever read about Atheism. Which is a good thing. If they're going to read something about Atheism, it might as well be something written by an Atheist. You can say what you want about Dawkins, he's got a huge brain and he knows how to use it. Plus he can write.

So I'm reading that part where he explains that Christians don't take their morals from the Bible, but actually apply the moral values of their own time and culture to the Bible itself! It makes sense when you think about it. And it explains a lot, too! Think of the Inquisition, for instance. The Christians responsible for that carnage - and let's not forget about the witch burnings and the massacre of the Indians of the Americas! - didn't see themselves as evil bastards. Of course not! How can they be evil if they follow the Word of their god? All they did was interpret the Bible according to the "moral" values that were prevailing in their time. In the Middle Ages (also called the Dark Ages, thanks to the Christians), there was no such thing as human rights. People were killing and torturing left and right. So when the Bible said "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" well, they just knew what they had to do, didn't they?

Today of course, virtually no theologian or Christian scholar would seriously suggest that witches should be killed. Or that homosexuals should be stoned to death. But why not? That's what the bible says, is it not?"

No, no, no!" they'll tell you, "you have to read it in context!" Hmm... That's interesting! But who determines what needs to be interpreted and what doesn't? Well, that's easy: culture! Nowadays, killing "witches" (like Wiccans) or stoning gays would be considered immoral by most people. "So surely," they'll assure you, "that can't be what the Bible says!"

So it turns out, and that's the point Dawkins makes in his book, it's not the Bible that tells Christians what is moral and what isn't. It's their culture! The Bible is simply interpreted according to the moral values prevailing in the society of the "interpreter." (*) So it does turn out that morality has nothing to do with the Bible or a god after all. (**)

I think that's brilliant! In hindsight, it is so obvious! But that's the kind of thing that we need to be told sometimes.

Thank you Dr. Dawkins!

Told you that was gonna be a short post.

(*) Unfortunately there are still people living in the Dark Ages, particularly in the U.S.A., who haven't caught up with the moral Zeitgeist yet... But fortunately, they will die someday. Bush and Rumsfeld come to mind. I wonder why. I must be a godless liberal!

(**) Besides, the Japanese are mostly atheists and yet, it would be hard to call them immoral or unethical. It's interesting to note that when the "evil atheists" that are the Japanese attacked the U.S.A. during World War II, they targeted a military base (Pearl Harbor) while the very "morally Christian" U.S. of A. retaliated by dropping their most devastating bombs, the A-bomb, on two Japanese cities, killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians! (***) I suppose it was the Christian thing to do… What is also interesting is that today Humanism has come to be synonymous with Atheism to the point where if someone tells you they're an atheist, you can bet everything you own that they'll be a Humanist too.

(***) Some scientists had suggested that an A-bomb be detonated in a desert in the presence of enemy generals. It would have been more than enough to defeat the enemy! It's not like they would have wanted that thing to be detonated in their backyard! But some American asshole, the President himself (war criminal Harry S. Truman, a Christian fundamentalist!), decided it would be cooler if it actually killed people. So two such bombs were dropped, one over Hiroshima, the other over Nagasaki. And a lot of people died. But hey! The Japanese were Atheists, so Truman probably thought his god would be fine with it...