Happy 420 / Easter

I have been lazy this week but here is a brilliant clip of the late Christopher Hitchens on the Immorality of christian doctrine.

Defense Against the Dark Arts: The Cosmological Argument

The Cosmological Argument

(St. Thomas Aquinas)

     The Cosmological Argument Is one of the more formal arguments for the existence of a god. It takes several forms and may be a bit intimidating at first. Some forms of the argument are simple to say but require lengthy replies to be debunked, making it a favorite of apologists in formal (timed) debates as a good way to eat up your opponents time. But taken step by step it is not too difficult to work through. Here goes nothing...

     A little history first. The cosmological argument dates back to Plato and Aristotle. It was adapted by Muslim, Hindu, and Jewish philosophers but the most influential form of the argument was adapted by St. Thomas Aquinas.

     Aquinas put it 3 different ways. 

Argument from Efficient Causes

Argument from Motion

Argument from Possibility and Necessity

They all take on the same form so I will address the efficient cause argument

1. There exist things that are caused (created) by other things.
2. Nothing can be the cause of itself (nothing can create itself.)
3. There can not be an endless string of objects causing other objects to exist.
4. Therefore, there must be an uncaused first cause called God.

Problem 1: Which god?

 

    At first glance this looks pretty solid logically and It convinced me for a short while before I became an atheist. The first Issue I took with it was the fact it had been used to prove a number of different gods (Yahweh, Allah, Brahma, etc) and they couldn't all be right. This made the argument insufficient to demonstrate any particular god. It also made me a Deist (Someone who believes in a creator god... that doesn't really do anything els in the world) for a week or two before I figured out what els was wrong with it.

Problem 2: Who created god?

     The big problem here is that while the argument hits a real issue in philosophy, the answer it provides is not really an answer at all. We have what is called an infinite regress problem meaning the answer to the question just creates another question... over and over again with no end in sight. 

     Kinda like when a child asks "Why?" and whatever your response is, the child simply repeats "Why?". Technically the child is not asking anything wrong but we tend to get annoyed when asked too many questions especially when he/she gets down to one we don't know the answer to.

     Aquinas said there must be something to fix this problem of infinite regression and he calls that fix god. But does saying "god did it" answer the problem or just push it one more question back? The next logical question as every christian parent knows is, "where did god come from?" I asked this as a child and quickly learned that it was not a question that parents liked to be asked. But if we are to be brave in our quest for truth we must ask, "Who created god?". This leads right back into an infinite regression. God was created by another god who was created by another god who was created by... on and on and on.

     A common response is that god is the only thing that is eternal therefore nothing made him. But that is no answer, you could say that about anything. To assert that this response works for god and not anything els is to make a Special Pleading Fallacy because you have no real reason to believe that there is any difference between "god is the only thing that is eternal" and "Blork, the time travelling hippopotamus, is the only thing that is eternal". It does not matter at all if one is ancient conventional wisdom and the other a whimsically lovable imaginary friend. Ideas must stand on their own merit, tradition does not indicate truth.

Problem 3: How do you know something cannot cause itself?

     This problem is a hasty generalization. With advancements in quantum physics and general relativity we are learning more and more that the universe acts very weird on the scale of the very small and the speeds approaching light speed.

    Things like Vacuum Fluctuations and Barrier Tunneling are challenging our common sense ideas. But this is to be expected our common sense is tuned to the size scale of things we live with and the speeds we travel at normally. We should be cautious when applying common sense that we have gained from observing everyday human life to particles so small you can't see them with the best microscope or when they are moving 99% the speed of light.

     While this is not proof positive that the argument is flawed it is a stern warning that we have been wrong before and we should tread lightly. The right time to believe something is when sufficient evidence is provided.

There are a few more intricate and sophisticated versions of the cosmological argument out there and I will post my take on them in the future. But I'm done for now. As always any comments or corrections are welcome and appreciated.  

Thank you,

-Adam

Tth

Defense Against the Dark Arts: Pascal's Wager!!!

Pascal's Wager

     The first argument I will attempt to dismantle is also the most common argument you are likely to see while talking to the average religious person. Pascal's wager is the name of an argument put forth by 17th century philosopher and mathematician Blaise Pascal.

Here is the argument in a nut shell:

If you believe in god...

        ...and he is real, you go to heaven.

        ...and he is not real, nothing happens when you die.

However, if you do not believe in god...

        ...and he is real, you go to hell.

        ...and he is not real, nothing happens when you die.

Even if god seems very unlikely, it is better to believe in god and be wrong than it is to risk the consequences of not believing and being wrong. 

     To be perfectly honest this seemed convincing to me when I was a christian. I even used it on a few people in an attempt to convert them.

     But I have since had a few realizations... 

Realization 1:  You can't really choose what you believe. Can you?

    You believe something because you were convinced it was true not because you chose to believe it. You may choose to say that you believe something but unless you are really convinced in your mind you don't truly believe in it.

Realization 2:  Wouldn't a god know that you were faking it? Or that you did it for the wrong reasons?

     If you decided to say you believe just to save your own ass wouldn't the omniscient (all knowing) master of the universe know that you are a phoney? This seems like a cowardly covering of your bases instead of honest whole-hearted belief.

Realization 3: Why are we only considering the christian god?

     Pascal formulated his wager only considering the christian god but what if, instead, we include the risks you are taking by not figuring in the consequences of other faiths? Accepting Jesus as god will put you in hot water with the muslim god Allah, what if they are right? Or what about the Hindu gods or anyone els's god? If any other god is as jealous as the Judeo-Christian god is said to be then wouldn't an atheist, who doesn't worship any god, do better than the person actively worshiping the wrong god?

    

In fact an Anti-Pascal wager can be formed.

1. It is impossible to tell which religion has it right, if any.

2. The consequences of worshiping the wrong god may be 

    worse than the consequences of worshiping no god at all.

3. Therefore, it is a safer bet to refrain from worshiping any god

     until such a time as that god can be substantiated.

This line of thought echo's Marcus Aurelius's quote

     Personally, the second realization was the one that killed off Pascal's wager for me. I reasoned that I should be honest with myself and that if there is a good god he/she/it would appreciate my honesty and dedication to truth.

For more info visit 

ironchariots.org Pascal's Wager

Arguments for the Existence of god

The existence of god

     Having only been an atheist for a few months my level of experience refuting religious arguments is relatively low. However, I have been reading, watching, listening to, and thinking about many of these arguments and I want to take a whack at them. 

     Arguments or excuses made to defend religious beliefs are often called Apologetics. What I will be doing is countering these arguments and that is referred to as Counter-Apologetics.

I am calling this series of posts "Defense against the dark arts"... I can't take credit for that name but I don't know where I picked it up.

Here is a list of the some formal arguments I have come across so far 

1. The Cosmological Argument
2. The Teleological Argument
3. The Moral Argument
4. The Ontological Argument
5. The Transcendental Argument

There are also a few less formal arguments I have seen

1. Pascal's Wager
2. Argument from Scripture
3. Personal Experience
4. Argument from Faith
5. "Would someone die for a lie?" Argument
6. Lunatic, Liar, or Lord Argument
7. Argument from Miracles
8. The Banana Argument

I have also come across many logical fallacies put forth as arguments

1. Argument from Ignorance
2. Popularity Argument
3. False Dichotomy
4. False Cause
5. Slippery Slope
6. Straw-man 
7. Appeal to Emotion
8. Ad Hominem
9. Shifting of the Burden of Proof
10. Appeal to Authority
11. Begging the Question
12. No True Scotsman
13. Composition / Division 
14. Appeal to Nature
15. Coercion
16. Loaded Question
17. Special Pleading

     These have all been addressed by people before me and are easily available online. I will try to take these on in my own words as a learning experience for myself and maybe others.

Here is a list of resources on these topics

Get to know your logical fallacies at 

yourlogicalfallacyis.com

Read up on Counter-Apologetics at 

ironchariots.org

The Thinking Atheist has a few good videos that go over some of the creationist arguments pretty well 

Give them a Look-See!

Top Ten Creationist Arguments

Part 1

Top Ten Creationist Arguments

Part 2

What is an atheist?

What is an atheist?

     So a common issue I have with people that find out I am an atheist is they don't know what I mean.  I will try my best to explain a few terms that I hope will clear things up. One thing I would like to point out before we get going is that the labels we give ourselves are our own. Just because you may fit into a definition is not a requirement that you self identify with that label.

Theist: A person who has a belief in the existence of a god or gods.

From the Greek "Theos" meaning god

     A theist is a person who holds a belief in a god or multiple gods. It is important to remember that this speaks only of their belief and not of their knowledge, one can believe in god without being able to prove he/she/it exists. Many world religions fit into this category Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Mormonism, Scientology, some forms of Buddhism, and many tribal religions. 

 Atheist: A person who does not have a belief in the existence of a god or gods.

From the Greek "A" + "Theos" meaning without/not god

     An atheist is a person who is not a theist. A common misconception is that being an atheist is professing a claim to knowledge. Just like theism speaks only to that persons belief, not any proof, atheism speaks only of that person not having that belief. Some forms of Buddhism and Jainism fall in this category.

     The first two terms on this list deal with having or not having a belief. The next two deal with having or not having knowledge.

Gnostic: A person who claims to poses knowledge.

From the Greek "Gnosis" meaning knowledge

     A gnostic person is someone who has or claims to have knowledge. The word is usually used for a kind of mystical knowledge. It is also the name of a Christian heretical group that branched off the Orthodox Christian church. Someone can be a Gnostic and a Theist this would mean that they have a belief in a god and that they claim to know that the belief is true. On the other hand someone can be a Gnostic and an Atheist this would mean that they do not have a belief in any god and that they claim to know that such a belief is false. Atheists that fall into this category are called Antitheists or Strong-Atheists. Please take note that all antitheists are atheists, but not all atheists are antitheists.

Agnostic: A person who does not claim to posses knowledge.

From the Greek "A" + "Gnosis" meaning without/not knowledge

     An agnostic person is someone who does not claim to have knowledge. The word is more widely used than it's counterpart but both are not strictly limited to mystical or supernatural knowledge. Someone can be both an Agnostic and a Theist this would mean that they have a belief in god but do not claim to know that the belief is true. Also one can be an Agnostic and an Atheist this would mean that they do not have a belief in any god but that they do not claim to know that such a belief is false. Atheists that fall into this category are sometimes called Weak-Atheists.

     I feel I need to add that there are basically two kinds of Agnosticism. Temporary Agnosticism in Practice (TA) and Permanent Agnosticism in Principle (PA).

     Temporary agnosticism in practice is a state of temporary ignorance, where a definitive answer is out there to be found but is out of reach for the time being. An example of this would be the answer to the question, "Do aliens exist?". There really is a definite answer to that question but until we find alien life or search and rule out every planet in the universe, the only honest answer is, "We don't know right now".

     Permanent agnosticism in principle is a state of permanent ignorance, where no matter how hard we try, in principal there is no way to come to a definite answer either way. An example of this would be the question, "Do you see colors the same way I see colors?". No matter how much new information is put forth we cannot know the answer. The most honest answer is, "We may never know".

I hope this has been informative and I would appreciate any comments or corrections.

Thanks as always,

Adam

Ps. Here is a great video on what atheism is, watch it!