<< Regarding Warmongers Your Thrift Habits (1948) >>
Regarding God
In recent months, the debate over the existence of God has started to really heat up here in America. I for one think that this is a wonderful thing. I doubt that these debates will be effective in changing opinions and beliefs, but if nothing else, the conflict requires all parties to consider and defend their belief, or lack of belief.
Simply stated: thinking is good for America. If a debate over God gets them thinking, so be it.
In the interest of full disclosure, my family includes devout followers of the Methodist, Lutheran and Catholic churches, along with a few Jews, a Jehovah Witness and a handful of atheists. My inner circle of friends also includes Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jedi, and all varieties of agnostics. I am always eager to listen to a person’s religious views, and try to do so without judgement. If forced to describe my own views, I would say that I am a recovering atheist, turned agnostic, who lacks the ability to prove or disprove any religious opinion, no matter how bizarre it might sound to me.
The purpose of this post is to address a few fallacies that I have seen being passed around under the guise of rational arguments. While reading these points, please remember that my only goal is to bring a greater depth to the debate.
Atheism is the default position
Atheists sometimes suggest that until you believe in a deity, until you commit to theism, you are a de-facto atheist.
Several religions suggest that unless you explicitly reject it, you are born into a covenant with God.
In both cases you are assigning an opinion to someone else, to someone who has not yet made any real decision. In truth, the only “default” position is “undecided”. Anyone arguing that a newborn human has either accepted or rejected the concept of God is not basing that opinion on any measurable observation.
I can prove/disprove God
Faith is defined as a belief not based in proof. Therefore, it is impossible to prove faith; to do so would be an inherent contradiction of terms.
Consider this: Jesus appears on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Would the world suddenly have faith in Jesus? Irrelevant: the world would now have proof of Jesus, and no need for faith in his existence. Faith in Jesus would become redundant once we were presented with proof.
Consider the opposite: I have faith, but no proof, that Jesus is going to be on the Daily Show. You might argue that there is no scheduled interview, that Jesus lacks a publicist, that Jon Stewart loudly rejects my premise, and therefore my belief is not rational. This is true. Faith, by definition, is not rational, is not based on reason or evidence. Faith allows me to form opinions completely independent of proof. You, meanwhile, are trapped within the confines of rational argument- you could never prove that a Jesus interview is impossible- the best you could do is demonstrate it to be extremely unlikely.
The juxtaposition of faith and logic is a cornerstone of most major faiths. Credit where credit is due: it presents an extremely effective catch-22.
Science disproves God
It is absolutely true that scientific observations have disproved many specific points of religious dogma. To use an easy example: Galileo was excommunicated as a blasphemer, but his observations were later proven to be true by virtue of Space Age technology. If you were to suggest that science disproves a literal interpretation of religious dogma, I would agree with you wholeheartedly. However, the issue of God is far greater than any specific dogma.
For example: it is possible that God created all the creatures of the land, sea and air, and did so via the process of evolution. It is also possible that the “big bang” and book of Genesis both describe the same event. It is also possible that evolution and singularity mechanics exist completely independent of any God. Simply stated: it depends on your interpretation of both your faith and modern science, and these are not necessarily mutually exclusive concepts.
Only illiterate hillbillies are religious
Prejudice and slander do not qualify as rational argument.
Only depressed emo kids are atheists
Prejudice and slander do not qualify as rational argument.
Religion is responsible for the crusades, and 9/11, and many horrible things
Religious dogma supports many horrific acts, such as stoning your daughter, or decapitating a non-believer. However, it is fallacious to attribute all religious dogma directly to God, while meanwhile disputing that God exists. Human beings are eager to hide their own agendas within populist movements, and men have been leveraging religious belief for personal gain since the dawn of time.
Stalin and Pol Pot were atheists, and they did many horrible things
A continuation of the above point, Stalin and Pol Pot also hid their own agendas within populist movements. Circumstantially, those movements were not based in religious dogma, but rather, in the abolition of religious dogma. Some people leverage the support of God, and others leverage the rejection of God, but in either case it is a selfish act for personal gain, and irrelevant to the debate over God’s existence.
Consider this:
If God exists, he is tolerant of our debate. If he weren’t, I am confident he could stop us- after all, he’s God. On the other hand, it is quite possible that the only reason we are able to debate this in the first place is because God does not exist, or at the very least, has no cognitive interest in what we are doing. Is God open-minded, or a dead-beat dad? Does he (or she) (or it) even exist at all?
I don’t know for sure.
And neither do you.
Hungry for more?
