True Reason: Tom Gilson Replies & My Response

My review of True Reason was posted to Skeptic Ink several weeks ago and one of the authors and editors replied to one of the chapters written by him. Tom Gilson is the author of the Thinking Christian website and he authored three of the chapters in the book. The chapter he responded to was the first one where he made a number of errors, one of which was failing to respond effectively to Richard Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker. As of this writing, Tom's reply can still be seen on the review posted at Skeptic Ink.

Tom Gilson:

Thank you for the review!

I'm not sure you caught the point of my criticism of Dawkins' book, however. You are defending Dawkins for "rebut[ting] the claims of Creationists and Intelligent Design advocates who argue that some feature of evolution could not possibly have occurred naturally." I agree with you that Dawkins did not fail to address those sets of claims.

But recall that the subtitle of the book was, "Why The Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design." Recall also that the climax of his argument was that God is "superfluous."

So suppose that Dawkins was completely successful in demonstrating that evolution happened as he described. I doubt that he was, but that's another matter, and for now we can take it for the sake of argument that he did succeed. Suppose he even demonstrated that God was superfluous to the natural history of biological creatures. Would this show (as he claims) that there is no God? How? There's still a disappointingly fallacious logical leap from, "Here's one aspect of the world we can explain without God," to, "There is no God." He reasoned poorly there.

Again: suppose evolution happened as he supposes: does that reveal a universe without design? Once you get done with studying evolution, there's still a whole lot of universe left over! There's cosmogony, cosmology, fine-tuning, the rationality and explainability of reality, and the full panoply of as-yet-unexplained human characteristics including consciousness, rationality, free will, and worth, which Dawkins didn't touch in that book (as I recall), and of which no evolutionary account has given an adequate treatment.

So in that sense he made a large and fallacious logical leap, too.

Dawkins is simply wrong, by the way, in his insistent and undying assertion that God must be "organized complexity." The God of classical Christian theism could not be "organized complexity." But he's never taken the effort to look into that, as far as I can tell.

(I did read the whole book, by the way.)

So I don't think I made the logical error you think I made when I wrote that chapter. But thank you again for interacting with it.

Arizona Atheist:

Hi Tom, thanks for stopping by. I am, however, confused by many your comments.

You write, "I'm not sure you caught the point of my criticism of Dawkins' book, however. You are defending Dawkins for "rebut[ting] the claims of Creationists and Intelligent Design advocates who argue that some feature of evolution could not possibly have occurred naturally." I agree with you that Dawkins did not fail to address those sets of claims." Then you say, "But recall that the subtitle of the book was, "Why The Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design. Recall also that the climax of his argument was that God is 'superfluous.' Suppose he even demonstrated that God was superfluous to the natural history of biological creatures. Would this show (as he claims) that there is no God? How?” (emphasis mine)

In your chapter you say explicitly that you were looking for a “serious challenge” against the notion of god-guided evolution. You said, “I picked up the book because of its subtitle: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design. I had no idea how he – or anyone – could make a case for […] disprov[ing] design in the universe [and] I wanted to test my mettle against it.” (True Reason, p.2)

You say nothing about the very existence of god in your chapter, which is not even addressed by Richard Dawkins in The Blind Watchmaker, so why you seem to be changing your argument from one purely about god-guided evolution to one about the existence of god confuses me.

You seem to be contradicting yourself here.

In your chapter, you are clearly responding to Dawkins' case against god-guided evolution. Your chapter presents an accurate description of Dawkins' intentions in The Blind Watchmaker. But here, you're arguing that you agree that Dawkins did successfully argue that point (that there is no evidence of god-guided evolution) and are now claiming Dawkins' intention was to disprove the very existence of god. But Dawkins nowhere says anything about disproving the very existence of god in the entire book.

In fact, where you quote Dawkins as saying that “God is "superfluous” he is not referring to god at all, but a certain belief about god's role in evolution. Here is the text from The Blind Watchmaker: “We cannot disprove beliefs like these, especially if it is assumed that God took care that his intervention always closely mimicked what would be expected from evolution by natural selection. All that we can say about such beliefs is, firstly, that they are superfluous and, secondly, that they assume the existence of the main things we want to explain, namely organized complexity.”

He said nothing of the kind, that there is no god. Only that the belief in god-guided evolution has no evidence going for it, and because natural selection explains the evolution of all creatures on this planet so well, the idea of “smuggling god in the back door,” to quote Dawkins, is unnecessary.

Hopefully you can help me to better understand what your intentions were because you're saying two completely different things here and in your chapter. I considered that perhaps you updated your chapter in the 2014 edition, because I own only the edition published by Patheos Press from 2012. But I read your chapter on Amazon in the newer edition and you make the same argument, so I'm even more confused. You're clearly contradicting yourself here.

You write, “Again: suppose evolution happened as he supposes: does that reveal a universe without design? Once you get done with studying evolution, there's still a whole lot of universe left over! There's cosmogony, cosmology, fine-tuning, the rationality and explainability of reality, and the full panoply of as-yet-unexplained human characteristics including consciousness, rationality, free will, and worth, which Dawkins didn't touch in that book (as I recall), and of which no evolutionary account has given an adequate treatment. So in that sense he made a large and fallacious logical leap, too.”

Yes, it's true that Dawkins' book only addressed the belief of god-guided evolution, but evolution is Dawkins' main area of expertise and he wanted to address this specific claim. And this is what he means by “design.” He's not referring to all design arguments, but only the specific subset dealing with biological design. If someone writes a book with the intention of covering a single topic I think it's unfair to criticize it for failing to address other related topics. It's like criticizing a historian for only covering the Middle Ages when there is so much more history to tell. Well, of course. It's not that they're unaware these other periods exist (keeping with the analogy), they just decided to focus on one time period. Similarly, Dawkins is aware of other forms of the design argument, his chosen topic was the issue of biological design.

Once again, Dawkins wasn't arguing in that book that god does not exist. He was only discussing god's alleged role in the evolutionary process, which you acknowledge in your chapter, but not here in the comments.

Now that we've got that sorted out, let's address your last argument. You write, “Dawkins is simply wrong, by the way, in his insistent and undying assertion that God must be "organized complexity." The God of classical Christian theism could not be "organized complexity." But he's never taken the effort to look into that, as far as I can tell.”

I would agree with you that theologians have often described god as simple, but at the same time I've never been able to understand how someone can make such strong assertions about the nature of something to which we have no evidence for. What is the basis for this assertion? It is philosophy, theology, the bible? I would be much appreciative if you could answer this for me.

Finally you write, “So I don't think I made the logical error you think I made when I wrote that chapter. But thank you again for interacting with it.”

1) I believe I did point out an error in your chapter;

2) You've contradicted yourself here in the comments, since you say nothing in your chapter about the existence of god, and only discuss (correctly) Dawkins' arguments against the claim that god guided the evolutionary process. What do arguments against the existence of god have to do with your chapter and my response? The issue was the argument that god helped to guide the evolutionary process, nothing about arguments for god's existence. This is my main point of confusion and why I believe you're contradicting yourself. You make one argument in the chapter and a completely different one here that are not related.

You're very welcome. It was a good read, but I honestly do not believe you or any of your co-authors were successful in making your case. Over the course of the next few weeks I will be rolling out my responses to each chapter.

I welcome an open dialogue with you and the other authors if you choose to. It should be interesting.

I'm looking forward to your response. Thanks again and take care.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm still hoping Tom comes by to respond to my reply and my follow up questions. I truly do not know how he can square away this contradiction, but I'm looking forward to a dialogue if he ever returns.

After thinking about this contradiction, it dawned on me that this is not the first time I've seen such strange tactics from a Christian apologist, where their defense of their argument does not appear to match their initial argument I responded to, and they accuse me of misreading it. It seems as if Tom is taking a page from David Marshall's “School of Apologetics” play book, but I believe I've effectively pointed out this contradiction, which will make it hard for Tom to continue to claim he didn't really mean what he said in this chapter of his. Thinking further about this, it made me wonder why so many Christians accuse atheists of misreading their arguments, even when it is perfectly clear that was not the case. Is it purposeful deceit or is it merely some kind of cognitive dissonance? An innocent cognitive error they do not even realize they're making? Lying for the Christian faith is not unprecedented since Martin Luther argued for lying to protect the Christian church. He wrote, concerning the bigamy of Philip of Hesse, “Is it not a good plan to say that the bigamy had been discussed and should not Philip say that he had indeed debated the matter, but had not yet come to a decision? All else must be kept quiet. What is it, if for the good and sake of the Christian Church, one should tell a good, strong lie?” [1]

With seeing such glaring contradictions it is hard for me to understand how someone can't possibly see such errors, but I've learned that cognitive errors and biases are a very strong force and can blind even the most intelligent and honest persons. I believe this is the most likely cause of Tom's contradiction, but now the question becomes: how to make him aware of his mistake? Hopefully by placing his comments side by side as I did in my reply it will help him see the contradiction. If he ever comes to defend his chapters I very much hope that he takes the time to respond, because I think he is inclined to do so, having made such a large mistake.

1. The Life and Letters of Martin Luther, by Preserved Smith, Ph.D., Houghton Mifflin Co., 1911; 381

Commentary on the Richard Carrier vs. David Marshall Debate

Earlier this year Christian apologist David Marshall debated Richard Carrier over the question, "Is the Christian Faith Reasonable?" After watching the debate I and most other commentators thought that it was about as decisive of a win as Carrier could have gotten, and Marshall has been continuously ridiculed about this debate ever since. For quite some time I considered the idea of giving a blow by blow account of why Marshall's arguments failed in the debate, having refuted the entirety of one of his books as well as a few other essays and blog posts, but eventually I scrapped the idea.



I recently came across a blog post by the infamous J.R. Fraser, David Marshall's sidekick on the Amazon.com forums, who was one of the most vile and dishonest individuals I've ever come across while debating on online fora. In a post dating from March 26, 2013, titled David Marshall v. Richard Carrier debate Fraser does his best (and that's not saying much) to defend Carrier's scathing arguments and rebuttal's to Marshall's arguments during the debate. The only argument covered in this post is Carrier's initial opening statement dealing with the Problem of Evil. You may want to watch the above video before reading on.

What follows will be the entirety of Fraser's post in blockquotes with my responses following immediately after.

Richard Carrier offers an argument against the reasonableness of the Christian faith based on a form of the problem of evil. Carrier argues that Jesus failed to inform people about things like germs, parasites, and proper sanitation and thus it is not reasonable to believe that Jesus is God as Christianity claims. The basic form of the argument can be summarized this way: “if Jesus had been God, he would have done X, Y, and Z; Jesus did not do X, Y, and Z; therefore Jesus was not God.” The fatal flaw in this argument is in justifying the first premise, but that issue can be set aside for the moment. Let’s start by looking at Carrier’s specific examples of what Jesus “should have done.”

Carrier argues that in order to prevent centuries of unnecessary deaths, Jesus should have taught people about germ theory, parasites, and proper sanitation. First, there is a considerable amount of naivety in such a statement. Even modern missionaries who travel to tribal cultures in today’s world can require years to communicate basic concepts of modern medicine to people from non-Western cultures, and that's only after said missionaries have had extensive training in cultural anthropology. While it’s easy to assume that things like modern medicine and science are culturally neutral and value-free, anthropologists know that this is not the case. So the idea that Jesus should have given lectures on germ theory strikes me as misguided. It would not have been understood. On the other hand it might have been a great strategy for him if he wanted to be followed and remembered by nobody.

I must object to Fraser's argument here, since it doesn't even begin to answer the argument Carrier was making. Fraser argues that Jesus could not have given his disciples and other peoples the necessary information about sanitation because it can take “years to communicate basic concepts of modern medicine to people from non-Western cultures, and that's only after said missionaries have had extensive training in cultural anthropology. While it’s easy to assume that things like modern medicine and science are culturally neutral and value-free, anthropologists know that this is not the case. So the idea that Jesus should have given lectures on germ theory strikes me as misguided.”

What's so horribly wrong-headed about this argument? It is the fact that if Jesus is supposed to be god then Jesus should have all of the knowledge god has, which is about everything. Therefore, it stands to reason that, armed with this knowledge, it would have been a simple thing for Jesus to inform others about the benefits of doing something as simple as washing one's hands after certain activities, or simple methods of sanitation. This argument does not at all require any “modern” knowledge since god is supposed to know everything, after all. If god is supposed to be omniscient, gracious and all loving, then certainly such a god would happily provide his creations with this necessary information. God allegedly gave his creations laws and codes of conduct, why not information to help them avoid disease by something as simple as sanitation? Or even simpler, as Carrier opines, simply eliminating said germs and parasites.

Fraser might argue that this argument is illogical because Carrier and I don't really know what god would do. However, this cuts both ways, since Fraser cannot say with any certainty what his god might do. I do think Carrier's argument is more powerful because Christians supposedly know what kind of being god and Jesus are. I just cited a few of the attributes, and given these few alone, there is no reason why a loving god who knows everything would not want to share his knowledge with his creations.

Finally, I will nitpick something he said. Fraser wrote, “Carrier argues that Jesus failed to inform people about things like germs, parasites, and proper sanitation and thus it is not reasonable to believe that Jesus is God as Christianity claims.” [emphasis mine] Carrier never said this, nor even implied it. Quoting from Carrier's opening speech, this was Carrier's argument summed up: “Notably, nowhere in the New Testament does Jesus or god impart any correct knowledge or information about the world, that wasn't already known to men at the time. Thus apparently, Jesus and his god were as ignorant as every other first century human.” Later he says, “Jesus and his god didn't do anything god-like. Just as their knowledge was ignorantly human, so was their ability.” This argument is one of his justifications for his larger point: “The Christian religion is simply not believable in the face of this evidence. Neither Jesus or Christianity as a whole has exhibited any special source of information about the world. Nothing distinctive of actual divine communication. They didn't know about germs, they didn't know about parasites. Christians have no more evidence of having a pipeline to a kind and all-knowing god than any other religion in history has, and that's the principle point, here. The fact that it took Christians 1800 years -- do the math on that, 1800 years -- to figure out that germs and parasites even existed, and it might be a good idea to kill them before they kill our kids -- proves that Christianity is a man-made religion, and not something received from any real god.”

But even supposing that this knowledge could have been accepted and understood by those first century Jews (which is simply not realistic), so what? Would these apostles of good hygiene have then been responsible to take that message to the Romans, and would the Romans have been expected to adopt it themselves? Perhaps in Carrier’s mind, if God had wanted to come to earth as a human being he would have done so as something other than an ancient Jew. Perhaps God should have made himself into a time-travelling 21st-century Westerner, because that’s what Richard Carrier would do. This appears to be the honest force of Carrier’s words.

Fraser provides no reasons why Carrier's scenario is “not realistic.” He has not provided any reasons why, given the attributes I cited, a loving god would not want to provide the knowledge to save countless thousands from death. Fraser's digression, asking whether or not Jesus' disciples would have taught the Romans, completely misses the point. And it seems obvious that Fraser is still unable to grasp the argument Carrier was making. There would be no need of time travel since god is all knowing. He already has the knowledge. Therefore, Fraser's argument is pointless.

Thus the premise that if Jesus had been God that he should have done X, Y, and Z has the dubious foundation that it simply starts from Carrier’s own assumptions about what God should do – and of course one of those assumptions is that teaching about things like repentance, sin, faith, reconciliation to God, and life after death don’t matter because – well, presumably because Carrier doesn’t think those things are real or rational. If Carrier DID think those things were real, he would probably have a correspondingly higher view of how important they are – and perhaps a different evaluation with regard to whether or not Jesus did what he should have done. If Jesus’ mission was to prevent as many premature deaths as possible, then perhaps Carrier is right, and Jesus should have taught about germs (even given the likelihood that such a teaching could never have been effective in the cultural context). If, however, his mission was something else (such as inaugurating the kingdom of God), then it’s possible that Carrier is totally off base. Rather than being a strong argument against the reasonableness of Christianity, Carrier’s argument turns out to be simple question-begging.

Richard Carrier did not state explicitly the attributes of god to give his argument its foundation, which I believe is justifiably implied, since I think Carrier's argument is just another derivation of the argument of evil, which takes into account god's allegedly loving nature. Given this foundation, this argument is anything but “question-begging.” Due to Fraser's lack of reasonable criteria or reasoning why he doesn't believe god would provide such information, I think he could be accused of question-begging.

Fraser's argument is irrational and goes against the very attributes his god is supposed to have: omniscient, gracious and all loving, among others. So, according to Fraser, his god and Jesus would rather preach their beliefs and try to convert people, rather than save childrens' lives.

There are other problems with Carrier’s argumentation which are more nitpicky. Carrier alleges that Jesus said “nothing we put into us can harm us,” and implies that this is simply wrong because of course germs can make us sick. My best guess is that Carrier is doing a botch paraphrase of Mark 7:15-23 or the parallel passage in Matthew 15:11-20. However, Jesus does not say that nothing we put into us can harm us, he says that no food can make anyone “unclean,” meaning in the Old Testament ceremonial sense.

This is a bit of a surprising gaffe by Carrier – any lay person who has attentively read the Old Testament will have noticed that there are a lot of foods which are “clean” and others which are “unclean” for the Jews. This is known as kosher. Jesus was certainly not saying that nothing we eat can harm us, he was saying that food does not defile a person spiritually. This is a significant theological point but it has nothing to do with what Carrier seems to think it does, namely physical health.

Carrier also says that according to Jesus not even poison can hurt us (although the verse actually only applies to believers), but this verse is found in the long ending of Mark which almost all scholars agree is not authentic. Carrier should know that full well.

I will deal with Fraser's first two paragraphs. Had Fraser more closely listened to Carrier's opening statement he would have known that Carrier specifically mentioned how Jesus is claimed to have said in the Gospel of Mark that “nothing we put into us can harm us.” He then cites the passage in Mark 16:18 where Jesus tells his disciples that “they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all.”

Fraser is simply being disingenuous because it's obvious that Carrier is discussing sanitation, but Fraser argues that the passages are not referring to this specifically. I'm sure Carrier is well aware of this. However, his point is that many others during the time washed their cups and other utensils (Mark 7:4), but Jesus tells his disciples not to do this. Yes, it was for religious reasons, but if Jesus is god and god is all knowing, then surely stopping the spread of disease is more important than mere religious ritual. If not, that is just immoral. That is Carrier's point.

Finally, so what if the endings in Mark are known to be unauthentic? Unauthentic or not, it was basic Jewish practice not to wash their hands and utensils, but had Jesus or god told their followers that this can lead do disease, he would have saved many lives. Even if the passage was added much later it would still not change these facts. These rituals existed despite this passage.

Carrier charges Jesus with incorrectly teaching people to eat without washing their hands in spite of the unhygienic nature of such advice. Clearly, argues Carrier, Jesus could not have been God and have made such a statement. Again Carrier’s argument flops because of his evident lack of understanding of rabbinic Judaism. The neglect of hand washing which the Jews who charged Jesus with(actually the charge was against Jesus’ disciples) was not simple hand washing for hygiene. It was the ritual hand washing that they believed good Jews were supposed to practice before, during, and after meals. Without the ritual hand washing, they believed the disciples were ceremonially unclean.

I've already anticipated and responded to this disingenuous argument. I wrote: Carrier's point is that many others during the time washed their cups and other utensils (Mark 7:4), but Jesus tells his disciples not to do this. Yes, it was for religious reasons, not hygienic, but if Jesus is god and god is all knowing, then surely Jesus and god are well aware of how to stop the spread of disease. When they saw their disciples not washing their hands, surely this thought must have crossed their minds, but they said nothing. It appears that mere religious ritual is more important than saving countless lives. If so, that is just immoral.

A bit of background is necessary here. The rabbinic system of ritual hand washing is not found in the Torah, but was later developed by the Jews. Thus Jesus responds to the challenge by challenging them: why do they break the commands of God because of traditions made by men? Jesus’ response to the question of hand washing was that food doesn’t defile a person spiritually, rather it is evil desires which motivate evil actions which defile a person. The entire discussion of hand washing (which is found in only one passage in Mark and Matthew) has to do with ceremonial cleanness and the theological discussion about the status of the Torah, a discussion which continued into the early church. Again, it’s an important theological point, but it has nothing to do with the use that Carrier wants to make of it. The idea of washing your hands for simple hygiene is not even in view. Carrier is misreading a theological discussion as a medical one.

I've already responded to this above.

Carrier’s entire argument also fails in principle. The argument is based on the premise that if a good human being would do X if it was in his or her power, then God should also do X. However, unlike human beings, God sees “the end from the beginning.” He is not so limited in his perspective as to see only the immediate effects of some action or inaction. We can make an analogy from parenthood. Very often as a parent I have to make a decision, sometimes painfully, to not do what my children would like me to do or to make them do what they do not want to do. Because I fail to do what they would do if they were in my position, from their perspective it would appear that I have fallen short of their moral standard. Often when this happens they announce, “No fair!” However, as a (hopefully) wise parent, I am able to make judgments about what is best which they are not yet able to make.

This argument is just plain ridiculous. Fraser actually argues that “God sees 'the end from the beginning'. He is not so limited in his perspective as to see only the immediate effects of some action or inaction.” In fact, it is precisely because god is able to see so far into the future that he would have known about the lives Jesus could have saved had he or Jesus mentioned these facts about the germ theory of disease and simple concepts of sanitation. Essentially, Fraser has utilized an entirely immoral argument, because he's just admitted that god and Jesus condemned millions to death and that this was the most “wise” decision. I beg to differ, and I think anyone with a properly working moral compass can also clearly see this.

The analogy to God is imperfect, because God’s wisdom is not merely significantly different in degree from ours in the way that mine is from that of my children. My children will grow up and in a few short years reach the level of understanding of an adult and perhaps one day become parents themselves. God’s wisdom, however, will always be above us, so it is not certain that anyone knows what God should do in any given situation. It’s even conceivable that they might be way off, possibly coming to a conclusion which is the opposite of the truth as God sees it.

Thus the basic form of the argument as it stands is not effective for the simple reason that it begins with the very dubious premise that Richard Carrier knows exactly what Jesus should have done if he had been divine. It’s a variation on any number of skeptical arguments from evil – if there is a God, he should have done X, or he should have prevented Y from happening. The basic justification for the premise is that any good human being would have done X or prevented Y if it was in his or her power, so God should do the same, most often accompanied by an emotional appeal which Carrier also makes heavy use of. It seems to me that it is rather more likely that if God exists (which I am convinced that he does), that he would do things which nobody would expect. A God who only did what humans expected or thought he should do would be no god at all.

Once again, had god or Jesus known of these scientific advances they could have prevented millions of deaths. I'm playing devil's advocate here, but surely Jesus and god are well aware that murder is a sin, according to god's own laws? The sixth commandment is “Thou shalt not kill,” but through their inaction they have violated their own laws. Given this fact, clearly both god and Jesus are aware that killing is wrong (it's right there in the ten commandments!) and surely all sane human beings are aware that killing is wrong, so we can easily surmise that god and Jesus would not want to willingly put innocent people to death. Given these facts, Fraser's argument that we cannot know what god or Jesus would have done is not supported by the facts, so long as they adhered to their own principles and laws that they laid down.

Obviously, they did not follow their own commandments and this is easily seen throughout the bible in both the cases of god and even Jesus. This leaves only three possibilities: either the Christian god and Jesus are immoral, or they did not and do not exist. The final option would be – and this was Carrier's entire point – that this is strong evidence that Jesus and all other persons from that time period had only the knowledge from that time period, and had no connection to any divine source of information, and further casting doubt upon other supernatural claims of Christianity. Therefore, the Christian faith is unreasonable because it is incoherent and doesn't even follow from its own premises.

Like every argument I've seen from J.R. Fraser, this post was all too easy to refute. He failed to state any logical premises from which he drew his conclusions, and he seemed to misunderstand some of Carrier's arguments. Fraser might fancy himself as some knowledgeable Christian apologist, but the fact of the matter is that his arguments are just as factually flawed and irrational as every other Christian apologist out there.

The 'New' Atheism: 10 Arguments That Don't Hold Water?: A Refutation

Introduction

I am at it again. I've set my sights on yet another Christian author who has published one more in a long line of books seeking to refute the New Atheists. This one is titled The 'New' Atheism: 10 Arguments That Don't Hold Water?, by Michael Poole, published by Lion Hudson plc, 2009.

I found this book to be poorly organized and the noted sources are a little difficult to understand at first, but other than that it is well written. The author has organized the arguments he will address by having each chapter devoted to a particular argument made by the New Atheists, which he designates as 'A' for “argument” or “assertion,” along with a corresponding number. It's certainly a different format for a book like this, and is a little annoying, but those are my opinions about how the book is laid out. As for the arguments themselves, let's find out...

However, before I begin I'd like to thank John, also known as “Hendy,” who currently blogs at technologeekery, for accepting my invitation to proofread early drafts and for advice on grammar. Thanks a bunch John!

Chapter 1: Un-natural selection or 'Down with sex!'

A1 Religion is evil because many bad deeds have been done by religious people.

In this first chapter Poole disagrees with Richard Dawkins' and Christopher Hitchens' complaints about the many evil deeds done by religious people. However, I feel that Poole has erected a strawman of sorts. The New Atheists do not view the bad deeds done by religious people as the reason religion is bad, it is the beliefs themselves that cause many people to do bad things, hence the many examples they give in support of their argument.

For example, in The God Delusion, Dawkins says,

You don't have to make the case for what you believe. If somebody announces that it is part of his faith, the rest of society, whether of the same faith, or another, or of none, is obliged, by ingrained custom, to 'respect' it without question; respect it until the day it manifests itself in a horrible massacre like the destruction of the World Trade Center, or the London or Madrid bombings. [1]

Poole counters by arguing that the New Atheists should have given a more balanced treatment by citing the many good things religion has done, such as the “abolition of slavery,” “the starting and foundation of schools and hospitals,” etc. (11) I disagree with the first claim, but the second and third are closer to the truth. [2]

My second complaint is that Daniel Dennett did provide several examples of religious people doing good things (and Poole even acknowledges this) so it's not as if the New Atheism as a whole disregards the sometimes good things religion has done. They just seem to believe that the bad outweighs the good, and that is my opinion as well.

He also complains about Hitchens' subtitle: “Religion Poisons Everything,” which I believe is a poor argument since it's obvious that it was worded in that manner to sell more books. Obviously Hitchens knows that religion has lead to some good things but, again, believes the bad outweighs the good. However, I do agree that the subtitle is an over exaggeration.

I believe Poole has erected another strawman when referring to Daniel Dennett's book Breaking the Spell. He wrties,

The investigation of the functions served by religion - functionalism - is not, in principle, a threat to the truth-claims of religion. It is a partial, but valuable, study of one aspect of the behavior of individual and collective humankind. Given Dennett's beliefs, he suggests

The three favourite purposes or raisons d'etre for religion are

to comfort us in our suffering and ally our fear of death

to explain things we can't otherwise explain

to encourage group cooperation in the face of trials and enemies

Religion serves these three functions, and why not? They say nothing about the truth or falsity of the beliefs themselves. (13-14)

Dennett's main purpose was not to investigate whether or not religion is true but the origins of religion. Even the chapter where Dennett is quoted is titled “The Roots of Religion.”

In order to make his point about why such “argumentation is bad” he gives an example. He argues that “sex produces page after page of stories about broken promises, rape, adultery, promiscuity […]” and argues how illogical it would be to conclude that “sex is bad for you and sex poisons everything.” (15)

The problem with this argument is that it's based on a strawman as I've already explained so this argument is irrelevant. Even still, this argument is absurd since sex in and of itself is not a human activity that comes with certain beliefs which might influence behavior. Rather, it is the beliefs we often have about the inequality of women, or seeing women as purely sexual objects, that are often a cause of sex crimes, and not sex itself. Religion, on the other hand, does come packaged with certain beliefs that can cause immoral behavior.

Finally, Poole tries the “They're not a true Christian” defense against the numerous atrocities done by Christians or because of Christian beliefs. He writes,

In short, [Jesus] is saying: if people don't do (or try to do, since we are all fallible) what I teach, don't believe them if they claim to have faith in me, and to be one of my followers. (16)

Obviously, Christianity as its practiced today is much more than what Jesus preached and because there are so many varieties of beliefs within the religion of Christianity itself it's absurd to argue that such and such person isn't a true Christian if they don't hold to your particular set of beliefs.

Chapter 2: 'Faith is believing what you know ain't so

A2 'Faith is irrational' and 'demands a positive suspension of critical faculties.'

The author cites several quotes by the New Atheists stating how faith is “unevidenced belief,” but disagrees with this claim. He essentially uses semantics to argue his case here, saying that “credulity” would be a better word to use than faith to describe belief without evidence. Poole writes,

The above views of faith do not reflect how the word is generally used in everyday life. […] [W]e might express our faith in a surgeon, a close friend's reliability […] (18-19)

These beliefs he uses as examples of “faith” are actually not “unevidenced” beliefs, but are beliefs that are reasonably held due to certain facts. Perhaps both the surgeon and the close friend are trusted because they have proven themselves to be reliable in the past? However, religious beliefs often have no evidential support to speak of. Any claims of evidence are often found to be faulty, such as “design” arguments. Therefore, religion can be said to be based on “blind faith.” After all, it's been shown quite extensively that Christianity is built upon exactly this kind of faith, “belief without evidence.” [1]

The final argument Poole uses is the claim that atheists have “faith” too. Faith in our senses. This argument has the same problem I spoke of above. Based upon past experience our senses can be trusted and have been proven to be reliable most of the time. In addition, the scientific method has often been helpful in correcting any issues with our senses not accurately representing the world, such as the common example of ghost sightings. Here, our senses are seemingly leading us astray but the scientific method can be used as a way to check to be sure our senses are not deceiving us.

The author also references Richard Dawkins' lectures titled Growing Up in the Universe and argues that Dawkins has also used the word “faith,” essentially trying to discredit his argument, saying that, “faith is a word used by religious and non-religious people” to mean “trust.” He quotes Dawkins saying that one must “put your faith in the scientific method. There's nothing wrong with having faith... there's nothing wrong with having faith in a proper scientific prediction.” (21)

What Dawkins meant in his lecture by “faith in the scientific method” was that based upon what we know about the laws of physics he knew that when he swung a ball, suspended by a string, away from his face it wouldn't swing back and strike him due to the knowledge we have of how objects behave due to these laws.

I don't feel this semantics argument is an effective one because no matter which word one uses, what matters is how one comes to believe certain things and whether or not there is reliable evidence for those beliefs. The scientific findings of science Dawkins spoke of in his lecture had solid evidence backing his statements, which is a far cry from the claims of religion. I will get to those supposed evidences later on in the book.

Chapter 3: People who live in glass houses...?

A3 Religious beliefs are memes, mind viruses, self-delusion, placebos, wishful thinking and indoctrination.

Poole argues,

But if belief in a God is a 'mind virus' that we may not know we have, then the double-edged sword that cuts both ways dictates that belief in no God is also a 'mind virus' that we may not know we have. This leaves the awful possibility that the atheist, too, may be living a life of total self-delusion without knowing it. (24)

Rather than trying to argue that these claims about religion are false, Poole attempts to argue that non-belief could be called a mind virus, a self-delusion, etc. but doesn't elaborate on his argument about exactly why this is so. Sure, this could “cut both ways” but where is the evidence that it does? He provides none.

Once again, Poole argues that the “double edged sword” cuts both ways when Dawkins argues how religion is “wishful thinking.” He says,

Furthermore, Dawkins claims that 'people of a theological bent are often chronically incapable of distinguishing what is true from what they'd like to be true.' But here comes the double-edged sword that cuts both ways. Change 'theological' for 'atheistic' and where does that get us in the debate? (25)

Again, no argumentation can be found detailing exactly why what he says even remotely applies to atheists.

Next, the author complains about Dawkins', and other atheists', use of the words indoctrination and brainwashing when referring to the teaching of religion. Once again, Poole argues that Dawkins is doing the same thing through his lectures Growing up in the Universe and the series on Charles Darwin called The Genius of Charles Darwin. Poole points to some “anti-religious” comments Dawkins made in both series. I've seen the entirety of The Genius of Charles Darwin and part of Growing up in the Universe and Dawkins was educating the children, trying to get them to view the world outside of their religious bubble and encouraging them to view the scientific evidence for evolution. That's what education is supposed to do: encourage children to learn of the evidence for evolution and allow them to accept it or reject it on their own, not threaten children with hell if they don't believe your views, as is often done with religious beliefs. Of course, Poole doesn't mention that aspect of religious “education.”

Another complaint by Poole about the Genius of Charles Darwin series is that Dawkins did not tell the students that one doesn't have to choose between either belief in evolution or belief in god. True, theistic evolution is a common belief, but it wasn't mentioned by Dawkins because, frankly, it's a view that has not a shred of evidence for it so Dawkins rightfully rejects this viewpoint. (28-29)

I am shocked that a theist finally understands Dawkins' views on “child abuse” and did not falsely characterize Dawkins as some evil atheist who wants to stop parents from teaching their own kids religion. He even says, “It is reasonable not to stick the labels of the parent's faith on to children who are too young to have made individual commitments.” (26) However, he uses the same “double-edged sword” argument and says that atheism “could also owe a lot to the gullibility of young people.” (26) He provides no evidence this is the case.

He further argues that many children “are taught to question and think through their beliefs; and some, after careful thought, arrive at belief in God or retain their existing belief in God.”

He also argues that, through interactions with other children who have different beliefs, children often learn to question their beliefs on their own. Having said this Poole says, “So perhaps the dangers are not as real as Dawkins seems to think.” (26)

Yes, but the fact is that countless parents do scare their children with hell if they do not believe as they do and that's the point! Arguing that, 'Well, parents don't always do what Dawkins describes' is no argument to the fact that many parents do precisely what Dawkins is complaining about.

Once again, yes, many children do remain with religion despite learning of other views, but at least they did so without pressure from their parents and threats of hell, which is what Dawkins was complaining about in his chapter on children and religion. Even Dawkins would support this (though he would highly disagree with their decision and see it as the wrong one, but at least they were not forced into that belief). As he wrote in The God Delusion,

If, having been fairly and properly exposed to all the scientific evidence, they grow up and decide that the bible is literally true or that the movements of the planets rule their lives, that is their privilege. The important point is that it is their privilege to decide what they shall think, not their parents' privilege to impose it by force majeure. [1]

Chapter 4: '...and may be used in evidence.'

A4 'Faith (belief without evidence) is a virtue. The more your beliefs defy the evidence, the more virtuous you are.'

Poole begins by stating the following,

In Root of all Evil? Dawkins states that 'Science weighs the evidence and advances. Religion is hidebound belief for belief's sake...' and '...the whole point about faith is that even massive and constantly accumulating evidence cuts no ice.' But is this true? (30-31)

The author cites John Montgomery, Professor Emeritus of Law and Humanities, as stating how he used the “legal standards of proof by preponderance of evidence and proof beyond reasonable doubt” as his criteria for believing “that God exists.” Of course, this is nothing but an appeal to authority and Poole further argues that there are forms of evidence that can be examined. Poole cites the bible and argues,

These testimonies illustrate the point that evidence today will have to be indirect - reported speech. Tests for the reliability of these authors, as well as of other historians such as Tacitus, Pliny and Josephus, draw upon the usual canons of historical evidence. (33)

There are numerous reasons why the bible cannot be trusted, one of which is the fact that these so called “historians” actually got a great deal incorrect as revealed by archeology. Having been proven wrong on many other issues it is only logical to suspend judgment until the facts can be checked. Until then, it's most wise to disregard much of what the bible says. [1]

Next, the author actually believes that he has avoided the same criticism he levels against the New Atheists. In his introduction he quoted Antony Flew,

In an earlier philosophical work, Flew cautioned that it would not

...do to recognize that of a whole series of arguments each individually is defective, but then to urge that nevertheless in sum they comprise an impressive case... We have here to insist upon a sometimes tricky distinction: between, on the one hand, the valid principle of the accumulation of evidence, where every item has at least some weight in its own right; and on the other hand, the Ten-leaky-buckets-Tactic, applied to arguments none of which hold water at all. (9)

Then, Poole argues that his case truly is a case of “cumulative evidence, each having some small value, [that] can add up to 'proof by preponderance of evidence and proof beyond reasonable doubt', while steering clear of the Ten-Leaky-Buckets-Tactic explained in the Preface.” (33)

He then brings forth his so called evidence. He mentions several standard theistic arguments:

1. Why is there something rather than nothing?
2. The seeming fine-tuning of the universe.
3. The existence of beauty and moral values, including principles of obligation and fairness.
4. Revelation.
5. The “evidential value” of religious experiences, including answered prayer.
6. Historical evidence, “drawing on both secular and religious sources.”

Poole fails to go into any kind of detail at all about these supposed evidences. Of course, each of them are horribly bad arguments and do in fact represent a “Ten-Leaky-Buckets-Tactic,” despite the author's denials. Each of these arguments have been dealt with in numerous places. Needless to say, they're all greatly flawed. [2]

In the final section Poole very briefly discusses the resurrection and again cites the bible as his “proof” that Jesus (and others) did in fact become raised from the dead. Once again, the bible is not a reliable book to be basing your beliefs on. Second, there has never been any confirmed evidence of any supernatural occurrences. If they do not occur now, why should we believe they did occur in the past? If supernatural phenomenon occurs at all surely it's on-going and does not just occur in certain time periods, especially not with all of the stories of supernatural phenomenon occurring throughout all periods of history. This is proof people believed in the supernatural throughout the past also, but due to our more advanced technology we are better able now then they were to determine whether or not these experiences were true representations of reality. All evidence to date shows they are not. [3]

Poole dismisses the very scholarly treatments that have disproven the resurrection and says, “Many have attempted to disprove the resurrection story but, so far, without noticeable success.” (38) I suppose Poole has not read the excellent collection of essays by noted biblical scholars in the book The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave, edited by Robert M. Price and Jeffery Jay Lowder.

Like the vast majority of this book thus far, Poole has failed to cite any sources for his alleged evidence. At the end of this chapter he relies on another argument from authority by citing Simon Greenleaf, Professor of Law at Harvard University, on the supposed reliability of the gospel accounts. (39) Once again, the facts entirely contradict Greenleaf's statement.

Chapter 5: Ancient.doc

A5 '...Dan Brown's novel The Da Vinci Code...is indeed fabricated from start to finish: invented, made-up fiction. In that respect, it is exactly like the gospels.'

[Maimonides, a great Jewish scholar] 'fell into the same error as do the Christians, in assuming that the four Gospels were in any sense a historical record.

Finally, the author decides to defend at least some of the arguments he put forward about the reliability of the bible as a historical source.

Poole cites both Dawkns and Hitchens as dismissing the bible as a reliable source of information, and even chides Dawkins by pointing out that he failed to cite any scholars who agreed with this view. (41-42) Of course, I have given several references by several noted biblical scholars who've come to this conclusion, more or less.

Next the author disputes a few minor complaints about the bible and the place of Jesus' birth by Dawkins and Hitchens. Since it's such a minor point I won't bother to address it. However, Poole further argues for the existence of Jesus and argues that the authors of the bible must have known Jesus personally. He argues that “there appears to be good evidence that the fourth gospel was the work of the apostle John, who was closely involved with Jesus.” (44)

It's highly unlikely that the author of John knew Jesus since the gospel of John has been dated to around 90-120 A.D., a century after the events they describe. [1] Given the fact that most people only lived to about the age of 46 it does not appear likely there are any eye-witness accounts of Jesus' life. To quote Richard Carrier,

In the ancient world, the average life expectancy (for anyone who survived to age 15) was 46 years, while fewer than 1 in 20 would live to 70, and fewer than 1 in 200 would live to 85. Any witness, who survived the war and was at least fifteen years old by 35 A.D. (and thus could recall events of previous years with any kind of reliability), would probably be dead before 75 A.D. (having only a 34% chance of survival, even without an intervening war and persecution), and would almost certainly be dead by 100 A.D. (with only a 1.5% chance of survival, and that's again without an intervening war and persecution, which would have reduced the probability of survival a great deal more). […] Likewise, Josephus himself says 20 years is enough time for witnesses to no longer be available to rebut a story (Life 360; cf. Jewish War 1.15 & Against Apion 1.55). [2]

Poole cites the same authorities he did earlier but in his attempts to bolster his case by citing these individuals he inadvertently weakens it. He writes,

John Montgomery (p. 31), in his paper 'A Lawyer's Defence of Christianity', comments that

In a court of law, admissible evidence is considered truthful unless impeached or otherwise rendered doubtful. This is in account with ordinary life, where only the paranoiac goes about with the bias that everyone is lying.'

Montgomery mentions how Professor Simon Greenleaf, referred to in Chapter 4,

....applied to these [New Testament] records the “ancient documents” rule: ancient documents will be received as competent evidence if they are “fair on their face” (i.e. offer no internal evidence of tampering) and have been maintained in “reasonable custody”... He concludes that the competence of the New Testament documents would be established in any court of law. (45) [emphasis mine in bold]

As the authorities Poole just cited said, if the documents can be shown to have been tampered with or were shown to be doubtful that could cast serious doubt on the reliability of the gospels. Well, as I've explained already, the gospels have enormous contradictions between them [even between the resurrection accounts, which Poole fails to mention (42)], science has proven much of what the bible says to be inaccurate, and there is clear evidence of tampering. One example is in the gospel of Mark. Mark 16:1-8 is the earliest version of the resurrection story, where women discover the empty tomb, and an angel tells them that the disappearance of the body means that Jesus has risen. In the earliest and best manuscripts the gospel ends there, then later on a scribe adds Mark 16:9-20, which speaks of his disciples seeing Jesus after he has risen. [3] Right here is iron clad evidence of “internal evidence of tampering.”

Poole finishes out the rest of this chapter by citing more “experts” as to the reliability of the gospels. He quotes F.F. Bruce as saying,

...if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt. […] Somehow or other, there are people who regard a 'sacred book' as ipso facto under suspicion, and demand much more corroborative evidence for such a work than they would for an ordinary secular or pagan writing. […] (46)

Once again, more statements without any evidence. The fact is that scholars check the reliability of other ancient documents as well and don't just blindly trust what they say. This is often done through archeology. The reason the bible is seen with “suspicion” is precisely because of the work done by archeologists in piecing together fact from fiction regarding the bible, and showing how in numerous cases it is historically inaccurate.

Ending this chapter Poole cites F.F. Bruce and Eric Ives as arguing how the New Testament has many more manuscripts than most other ancient documents (yes, this old canard again...), thus (somehow) proving these documents are reliable. (46-47) Just because there are many copies of something does not mean we can trust what the documents say, since we do not have the original documents to compare with the surviving copies. To quote John Beversluis,

[…] Since the autographa have not survived and nobody has laid eyes on them for 2,000 years, how could anybody possibly know what was in them – much less, which copies approximate most closely to them? Since there is nothing to which existing manuscripts can be compared, the very ideas of the original manuscripts and which manuscripts approximate most closely to them are useless ideas and should be abandoned. I can judge that a photo is a good likeness of you if and only if I have seen you and know what you look like. If I have not, then I am the last person on earth to ask. The situation is not improved by assuring me that there are thousands of photos of you. The fact is that I have never seen you, so tell million photos would not help. [4]

Throughout the majority of this chapter we saw Poole use nothing more than arguments from authority without any evidence to back up his claims. Either that, or his claims contradict the facts outright as I've shown.

Chapter 6: Explaining Explaining

A6 'Historically, religion aspired to explain our own existence and the nature of the universe... In this role it is now completely superseded by science.'

'Religion has run out of justifications. Thanks to the telescope and the microscope, it no longer offers an explanation of anything important.'

'Religion can only provide facile, ultimately unsatisfying answers. Science is constantly seeking real explanations.'

Poole makes his goal clear when he says,

A common mistake is to regard explanations of processes as alternatives to explanations about the acts of agents, human or divine, rather than as compatible accounts. In connection with science-and-religion issues, this tendency sometimes manifests itself not simply as contentment with one type of explanation but in denying the need, the validity, or both, of other types of explanation. […] Surely, saying “God did it” is logically compatible with saying how it came about, isn't it? (52-53)

Poole argues that “both can be true,” meaning the scientific facts about our world and acts of god. For example, according to the author evolution could very well be true, but that does not mean that god couldn’t have helped to guide it in some way.

The issue with this type of argumentation is that there is not one shred of evidence for any gods and there is no evidence of any tinkering by any supernatural agent. Due to the lack of evidence the supernatural explanations are not rejected because they are not liked, or some other reason, but because there is an enormous lack of evidence for such things.

Next, Poole claims that atheists use what he calls a “Gap of a God” and says,

But here we are confronted with something like an atheistic converse of the God of the Gaps. This is the belief that scientific explanations oust explanations of the agency of God, which I shall call Gap of a God. (55)

Once again, where is his evidence for such a belief? The supernatural has never been proven, despite much scientific study.

The reason scientific explanations supersede religious ones is simply because the scientific explanations actually explain the phenomenon while religious explanations simply “beg the question” by making one wonder how or why god did this or that. Religious explanations leave a lot to the imagination when it comes to god. On the other hand, science can explain most phenomenon while taking into account all the how and why questions. This is something that religion can't do when it comes to their pet explanation: god. But there is more than mere practical reasons to disregard religious explanations, there are philosophical reasons too. To quote Donald R. Prothero,

[S]cientists practice methodological naturalism, where they use naturalistic assumptions to understand the world but make no philosophical commitment as to whether the supernatural exists or not. Scientists don't exclude god from their hypotheses because they are inherently atheistic or unwilling to consider the existence of god; they simply cannot consider supernatural events in in their hypotheses. Why not? Because […] once you introduce the supernatural to a scientific hypothesis, there is no way to falsify or test it. [1] (emphasis in original)

Chapter 7: Where do we draw the boundary?

A7 ' Religion is a scientific theory.'

'I pay religions the compliment of regarding them as scientific theories.'

'I shall suggest that the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis.'


Michael Poole opens his chapter with the following,

The first two claims [above] are not recent but seem consistent with the third and three similar ones in The God Delusion. But is it coherent to expect a scientific test for God, who is not a material object? […] The scientific enterprise, by its subject matter of material things and by its methods, does not concern itself with First Causes. […] So there is something odd about turning to science, the study of the natural world, in the hope of answering religious questions about whether there is anything other than the natural world (that is, God) to which the natural world owes its existence. (57-58)

While science does often rely on methodological naturalism science can and does search for supernatural phenomenon and there are materialistic ways to test for supernatural phenomenon.

To quote Donald R. Prothero once more,

[T]here have been many scientific tests of supernatural and paranormal explanations of things, including parapsychology, ESP, divination, prophesy, and astrology. All of these nonscientific ideas have been falsified when subjected to the scrutiny of scientific investigation (see Isaak 2006; also 2002 for a review). [Philip] Johnson loudly complains that the supernatural has been unfairly excluded from the debate, but this is clearly not true. Every time the supernatural has been investigated by scientific methods, it has failed the test. [1]

I also greatly favor Victor J. Stenger's statement about this issue. He sums it up by arguing,

Religions make statements about all kinds of phenomena that are legitimate parts of science, such as the origin of the universe and evolution of life. Even the principles of morality are subject to scientific investigation since they involve observable human behavior. […] The gods most people worship purportedly play an active role in the universe and in human lives. This activity should result in observable phenomena, and it is observable phenomena that forms the very basis of scientific investigation. [2]

I don't think much more needs to be said. However, I will note that Poole objects to Dawkins' argument that god must also need a creator if, as theologians say, “everything has a cause,” by stating that, “Created Gods are, by definition, a delusion.” (60) Really? If that's the case, then why do anthropologists find exactly what Poole argues is a “delusion?” The fact is that some cultures have stories about gods who are born and die. [3]

The fact is that science can and does investigate supernatural phenomenon and to date no evidence of anything supernatural has been uncovered, despite much research into the matter. Because of the very facts noted by Victor Stenger science and religion are not “non-overlapping magisteria,” to quote the late (and great) Stephen Jay Gould.

Poole also seems to believe that science and religion are compatible and argues against the claim of the New Atheists that they are in conflict, but he doesn't really develop his argument. He simply notes how many religious believers see no conflict and that there have been many religious scientists. (61-62) Science and religion are in conflict because they both make claims about the origins of the universe, the origins of man, and other questions that are clearly questions for science. In this way science and religion can do nothing but conflict with one another.

Chapter 8: An endangered species?

A8 '...good scientists who are sincerely religious in the full, traditional sense,' both in the United States and in Britain, 'stand out for their rarity and are a subject of amused bafflement to their peers in the academic community.'

Poole takes up what I would consider to be a fairly trivial point about the lack of religious scientists in The God Delusion. However, the fact is that many studies do confirm largely what Dawkins reports. But I am getting a little ahead of myself. Poole writes,

I find this statement surprising. Not only are there many scientists who have religious interests, but many such academics have formed societies to engage in scholarly studies of, and produce publications about, the interplay between science and religion. (67)

He then lists several of these societies and the number of members. For brevity I will not copy the list of each association but the total number of religious scientists in each. The total comes out to 3,721. (68)

There are several studies throughout the years which show that scientists who are religious are fairly rare. A study done in 1998 in Nature showed that 60.7% expressed “disbelief or doubt.” [1] A second study done in 2007 concluded that “52 percent of scientists surveyed identified themselves as having no current religious affiliation.” As for the labels "evangelical" or "fundamentalist," under “2 percent of the RAAS population identifies with either label.” [2] Finally, a study done in 2009 showed that only 33% of scientists believed “in god,” while 18% don't believe in a god but do believe in a “higher power.” 41% don't believe either. [3]

While it could be considered debatable what exactly “rare” means in this context the fact is that scientists are overwhelmingly non-religious.

Chapter 9: Back to the drawing board – but whose?

A9 'Darwin has removed the main argument for God's existence.'

Michael Poole begins,

The final two chapters will consider 'the central argument' of Dawkins' book which sets out to explain the origin of the universe's apparent design without invoking actual design. (69)

He then begins to discuss William Paley and the watchmaker argument, next quoting Charles Darwin as no longer being impressed by Paley's arguments since his discovery of natural selection. Poole then quotes Darwin again from a letter to Asa Gray,

Darwin's theory altered Paley's from of an argument for God from design but did not remove the idea of design altogether. Darwin suggested that the design lay in the laws God created – 'the Creator creates by...laws' – commenting that 'I can see no reason why a man, or other animal, may not have been expressly designed by an omniscient Creator, who forsaw every future event and consequence.' (70)

This quote seemed suspect to me so I looked it up. At the Darwin Correspondence Project website this letter is archived. Here is the latter half of the letter in full so you can see the context.

[…] With respect to the theological view of the question; this is always painful to me.— I am bewildered.— I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see, as plainly as others do, & as I shd wish to do, evidence of design & beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidæ with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed. On the other hand I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe & especially the nature of man, & to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance. Not that this notion at all satisfies me. I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton.— Let each man hope & believe what he can.—

Certainly I agree with you that my views are not at all necessarily atheistical. The lightning kills a man, whether a good one or bad one, owing to the excessively complex action of natural laws,—a child (who may turn out an idiot) is born by action of even more complex laws,—and I can see no reason, why a man, or other animal, may not have been aboriginally produced by other laws; & that all these laws may have been expressly designed by an omniscient Creator, who foresaw every future event & consequence. But the more I think the more bewildered I become; as indeed I have probably shown by this letter. [1]

It appears that Poole has correctly interpreted Darwin's views, in that god may have created the laws that govern man, beast, and the universe, but the quote itself appears to take Darwin out of context by wrongly quoting him as saying that he could “see no reason why a man, or other animal, may not have been expressly designed by an omniscient Creator […],” seemingly contradicting his own statement quoted by Poole about Paley's argument.

I find the phrasing of the quote strange and I was unable to find the book Poole cited for this quote on the internet, Darwinism and Divinity (Oxford: Blackwell, 1985). If anyone has it please check it out for me. Poole says it occurs on page 56.

Either way, citing Darwin's beliefs about his own theory is, once again, nothing but an appeal to authority. Furthermore, much more has been learned since Darwin's time so to cite his opinions on whether or not god has a hand in the workings of the laws of nature is pointless.

Poole continues to argue that it's still possible that this “appearance of design in nature” could have “resulted from actual design.” He argues that god could have created “a universe involving a Big Bang” and all that took place – the particles colliding, etc. - could have been caused by god. (70)

Following this argument, he continues by arguing that even though there are cancers and “[t]he presence of consequences unintended (but not unforeseen) by God does not, however, rule out divine design, even though Dawkins claims that 'natural objects... have imperfections which you wouldn't expect to get on objects designed by a real designer.'” (72)

Poole fails to provide any evidence for this all-powerful being so this argument's fatal flaw is the lack of evidence of Poole's god. With science closing the gaps in our knowledge, the tasks that god was needed for are no longer. Those many tasks are nature's do to now. Given these facts theists have had to reinvent their god. Yes, some theists have made this same argument throughout history, but that fact does not cause the evidence for their god to come bursting forth. That's the key that's missing if Poole's argument is to hold any water.

He continues to argue that god may have created the process of evolution to create life and quotes a few Christians as coming to this conclusion. He also claims the bible contains passages that speaks of evolution, one being Mark 4:26-28, but this is a very vague passage that is only speaking of the fact that corn grows after a seed is planted and man is clueless as to how this process takes place. This is just one out of countless examples of Christians' spurious reading of modern day science into the bible. The mechanism of evolution hadn't been discovered until hundreds of years later so it would be impossible for the bible to contain such knowledge.

The final topic under discussion is Intelligent Design. Because Poole is a theistic evolutionist he is hostile to the Intelligent Design movement and gives a few criticisms I agree with, such as the apparent shrinking of the number alleged “irreducibly complex” systems that I.D. supporters can point to due to our increasing knowledge. However, I find Poole's criticisms of I.D. to undermine his own arguments since our expanding knowledge of the universe itself, and not just of evolution, is closing many gaps, leaving less and less room for a god to hide. In addition, there is no evidence in the universe or our biology of any tinkering of any god, as I mentioned earlier. These facts entirely undermine Poole's argument.

I agree with Victor J. Stenger who says,

[M]ost science-savvy theologians agree with most scientists that intelligent design, at least as it has been formulated so far, is a failure. Theologians are far more impressed by the fine-tuning argument and they have received support from a number of prominent scientists who profess not to be believers but admit that the facts are puzzling and require explanation. [2]

More recently Stenger has published a new book explaining why all of the fine-tuning arguments in use are factually incorrect and he did so without resorting to the controversial multiverse theory. [3]

In conclusion, Michael Poole writes,

In short, evolution is a broken crutch for supporting atheism. (77)

As I've said, there is no evidence of Poole's god so his argument leaves him spinning his wheels and he fails to get anywhere. Furthermore, I am well aware that evolution has been assimilated into Christian belief but the fact is that evolution contradicts the original Christian belief in human origins. The fact that Christians have to reinvent their beliefs is proof that evolution is a problem for Christian dogma. It is intellectually dishonest to include new scientific discoveries into a supposedly truthful revelation from their god about human origins as told in their bible. If this was a revelation from their all-knowing god, why didn't he include the fact of evolution? Not just evolution but all scientific discoveries are a problem for Christian belief. It is not a virtue to adapt to new discoveries when it comes to religion, it is a disgrace.

Chapter 10: Unpeeling the Cosmic Onion

A10 '...some kind of multiverse theory could in principle do for physics the same explanatory work as Darwin does for biology, rendering God improbable.

'...any God capable of designing anything would have to be complex enough to demand the same kind of explanation in his own right. God presents an infinite regress.'

The first half of this chapter discusses the controversial multiverse theory and Poole explains that it is not possible to observe it and if this is so why is it considered “scientific.” (81) I would agree that this proposal has not been proven yet but a multiverse does fit with scientists' current knowledge of the universe, but there is no need to resort to such a hypothesis in order to refute this claim of fine-tuning. [1] In Victor J. Stenger's newest book, The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning, he makes his argument by “the application of well-established physics and cosmology” alone. [2]

Poole cites Stephen Hawking as saying that “a minute increase of about one part in a million million in the density of the universe one second after the Big Bang would have meant a recollapse of the universe after some ten years.” (78-79) Poole is obviously attempting to argue this is an example of fine-tuning but this appears to be false. [3]

Next, the author argues that “[t]he idea of a necessary choice between a multiverse or God is another example of the fallacy of the excluded middle […]. The arising of our particular domain within a multiverse would no more disprove divine activity than natural selection disproves divine activity in organic adaptation […].” (82-83)

Once again, I would argue that the multiverse is more scientific than the god hypothesis simply because scientists' findings seem to predict the occurrence of a multiverse but no observations have even hinted that god exists.

The second half of this chapter addresses Richard Dawkins' Boeing 747 argument against god in The God Delusion. Poole argues that Dawkins' argument against god does not apply to a being that is immaterial since Dawkins' argument relies upon the concept of natural selection, a physical process. (83-84) As Poole has done throughout his book he has essentially made his god untouchable and unknowable. Of course, as I quoted Victor J. Stenger in a previous chapter, god is said to work within the world and so we should be able to detect his presence in some fashion, so this argument gets Poole nowhere.

I found the author's next sentence to be amusing. He wrote,

[O]ne general way of deciding God's probability would be to take the 'pointers' to God's existence, outlined in Chapter 4, and evaluate how far they support a cumulative case for God. (84)

According to his own argument god must be horribly improbable since all of his arguments in chapter 4 were shown to be completely devoid of any factual content.

Finally, Poole takes issue with Richard Dawkins' argument of the infinite regress, the same argument Poole quoted above at the beginning of the chapter.

I am confused by Poole's argument. Dawkins' statement was referring to the fact that god should also require a designer, thus god is vulnerable to an infinite regress. God couldn't have just “popped” into existence, according to this argument; he had to have been created as well.

First Poole runs the sequences of the big bang backwards, starting with the fact that the carbon in our bodies was made from stars, to the formation of stars, to the big bang itself. Poole then continues with the following,

All these explanations are, to use William of Ockham's words, 'of the same kind': physical explanations, with no mention of God. There is no obvious indication that the sequence, like the unpeeling of some cosmic onion, is an infinite regress. (85)

It appears that Poole is attempting to argue that the universe has a definite moment of creation, therefore it cannot be eternal (have an infinite regress), which is false, but Dawkins' argument was referring to god, not the universe.

Poole continues after briefly discussing quantum effects,

Summing up, it is questionable whether there is a physical infinite regress within our universe. But whichever way the answer lies, it has little bearing on the flawed 'Who made God?' argument. The idea of 'being made' is conceptually excluded in the case of the Judaeo-Christian God […] (85)

Again, Dawkins' argument was referring to god, not our universe, but the fact is that modern cosmology and physics tell us that the universe is likely eternal. [4]

Yes, Poole seems to like arguing that nothing can possibility disprove his god but, as I've stated a few times already, if god works within this world as theists argue then evidence should be there that we can examine. The fact that evidence that should be there, but isn't there, if god were real, is pretty good evidence of his non-existence. In other words, absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

In the final section of the book Poole writes,

On London's 'bendy buses', early in 2009, there appeared the slogan 'There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy life.' […] If God has the same status as tooth fairies and Father Christmas, as Dawkins appears to think, is it necessary to spend so much money trying to persuade people that God doesn't exist? (89)

I'd like to answer this question for him. The reason so much money and time is spent looking to convince people there is no god is because of the physical harm that often comes from that belief, as I explained in the first chapter. In addition, numerous groups who have religious agendas seek to push their religion and/or beliefs on us and those that speak out are simply fighting back against these groups. [5]

Conclusion

This was certainly an interesting book. It was well-written and was an easy read. I just do not agree with most of the author's conclusions and feel that he is deceiving himself, especially regarding his reliance on his very fallible bible. On the other hand, it was a breath of fresh air to read a book seeking to refute the New Atheists that was not filled with misquote after misquote. Michael Poole successfully interpreted their arguments in most cases and, to my surprise, understood Dawkins' actual views on the issue of children and religion. I can't tell you how nice it was to finally find a Christian who did not take Dawkins' words and twist them in order to accuse him of wishing to pass laws to stop parents from educating their children in their religious faith.

I also am delighted to know that Poole is not an advocate of Intelligent Design. That was also a breath of fresh air.

Having said this, I know the book was not intended to be a fully fleshed out argument, hence it's brevity on most issues, so I can understand Poole not going into as much detail as I believe he needed to on most issues. However, I do wish that he would have at least cited more sources where more fully formed and detailed arguments might be found in order to supplement his brief treatment of these issues.

Finally, I think I've reviewed so many books written by Christian apologists that I can't really seem to find anyone who has any original arguments. They all pretty much say the same thing. That reminds me of a passage in a book by Robert M. Price. He said,

Reading these books and debating [Craig Bloomberg] taught me one thing: with only minor modifications, namely the partisan, opportunistic appropriation of some more recent scholarly theories, today's new generation of apologists are using the same old arguments InterVarsity sophomores are trained to use. Little has changed since the eighteenth century. In fact, every debate I have had with evangelicals has reinforced the same conclusion. What has happened, I think, is that the traditional apologetics have now become as fully a part of the evangelical creed as the doctrines they are meant to defend! The apologetics have themselves become doctrines. The official belief, then, is so-and-so, and the official defense is this-and-that. That is why their books all sound the same and why the new ones sound just like the old ones. [1]

I can relate to Price's thoughts on the matter. I've begun to feel the same way. About every book I read and refute contain almost the exact same arguments, sometimes even using the same language! One example while reading this book stuck out in my mind. I reviewed another book called The Truth Behind the New Atheism, by David Marshall, and he also argued, like Poole, that faith means “trust.” There were other similarities but I won't bore the reader with any more.

To reiterate, the book was a good and easy read but the argumentation and logic was mostly very flawed and numerous facts refuted many of the author's conclusions outright.


References

Chapter 1: Un-natural selection or 'Down with sex!'

1. The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins, Houghton Mifflin, 2006; 306

2. Slavery, Abolitionism, and the Ethics of Biblical Scholarship, by Hector Avalos, Sheffield Phoenix Press Ltd., 2011

Chapter 2: Chapter 2: 'Faith is believing what you know ain't so

1. Not the Impossible Faith: Why Christianity Didn't Need a Miracle to Succeed, by Richard Carrier, Lulu.com, 2009; 329-351; 385-404

Chapter 3: People who live in glass houses...?

1. The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins; 327

Chapter 4: '...and may be used in evidence.'

1. Several books lay out this evidence. A few are as follows:

The Case Against the Case for Christ: A New Testament Scholar Refutes the Reverend Lee Strobel, by Robert M. Price, American Atheist Press, 2010

Who Wrote the Gospels?, by Randel McGraw Helms, Millennium Press, 1997

The End of Biblical Studies, by Hector Avalos, Prometheus Books, 2007

Jesus, Interupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don’t Know About Them), by Bart D. Eheman, HarperOne, 2009

The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Anceint Israel and the Origin of its Sacred Texts, by Israel Finkelstein & Neil Asher Silberman, The Free Press, 2001

The Bible Against Itself: Why the Bible Seems to Contradict Itself, by Randel McGraw Helms, Millennium Press, 2006

Biblical Errancy: A Reference Guide, by C. Dennis McKinsey, Prometheus Books, 2000

2. The following books are good resources on these arguments:

The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe is Not Designed For Us, by Victor J. Stenger, Prometheus Books, 2011

The above books on the bible are excellent resources about the historical claims and claims to accuracy about the bible.

Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong, by Marc D. Hauser, HarperCollins, 2006

Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity, by John W. Loftus, Prometheus Books, 2008

3. Pseudoscience and the Paranormal, by Terence Hines, Prometheus Books, 2003

Chapter 5: Ancient.doc

1. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ - accessed 10-16-11

2. Was Christianity Too Improbable to be False?, by Richard Carrier, Chapter 7, Footnote # 31 - accessed 10-16-11

3. Jesus is Dead, by Robert M. Price, American Atheist Press, 2007; 4

4. The Case Against The Case for Christ:A New Testament Scholar Refutes the Reverend Lee Strobel, by Robert M. Price, American Atheist Press, 2010; 98-99

Chapter 6: Explaining Explaining

1. Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters, by Donald R. Prothero, Columbia University Press, 2007; 11

Chapter 7: Where do we draw the boundary?

1. Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters, by Donald R. Prothero, Columbia University Press, 2007; 11

2. The New Atheism: Taking a Stand for Science and Reason, by Victor J. Stenger, Prometheus Books, 2009; 14

3. Atheism Advanced: Further Thoughts of a Freethinker, by David Eller, American Atheist Press, 2007; 14

Chapter 8: An endangered species?

1. Leading scientists still reject God - accessed 10-16-11

2. Scientists May Not Be Very Religious, but Science May Not Be to Blame - accessed 10-16-11

3. Scientists and Belief - accessed 10-16-11

Chapter 9: Back to the drawing board – but whose?

1. Darwin to Asa Gray, May 22, 1860 - accessed 10-16-11

2. The New Atheism: Taking a Stand for Science and Reason, by Victor J. Stenger, Prometheus Books, 2009; 88

3. The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe is Not Designed for Us, by Victor J. Stenger, Prometheus Books, 2011

Chapter 10: Unpeeling the Cosmic Onion

1. The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe is Not Designed for Us, by Victor J. Stenger, Prometheus Books, 2011; 227

2. Ibid.; 22

3. The New Atheism: Taking a Stand for Science and Reason, by Victor J. Stenger, Prometheus Books, 2009; 95

4. The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe is Not Designed for Us, by Victor J. Stenger; 115-147

5. Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism, by Michelle Goldberg, W.W. Norton &Company; 2007

Conclusion

1. The Case Against The Case for Christ:A New Testament Scholar Refutes the Reverend Lee Strobel, by Robert M. Price, American Atheist Press, 2010; 17

Against the Gods: Arguments Against God's Existence

Introduction:


It's been my hope to create a blog which attempts to answer a great majority of the claims and arguments put forth by theists about the existence of god, evolution, etc. I think I've amassed a great deal of information since I began my blog about a year and a half ago, but there seems to have been some arguments I've missed or just didn't bother to cover because, to put it simply, I thought they were too stupid to be taken seriously. For this reason I won't cover the Ontological arguments for god's existence, but I will cover all others. Because I have spent so much time on the arguments against "design" I will skip those sets of arguments as well (but I will place links that will point you to posts I've already written about it).

Because I began my blog in the first place to argue against the creationist/intelligent design nonsense a majority of my counter arguments and posts have been geared towards those kinds of arguments but because of reader feedback I've decided to address more arguments for god. I have referenced the book The Non-Existence of God, by Nicholas Everitt, for a list of arguments that I will be debunking.

The truth is, though, that I see nothing special about these arguments. Each of these arguments are fatally flawed when you think about them for just a few minutes (or when you look at the contradictory evidence). When someone comes to me and starts using a lot of philosophical arguments I often dismiss them by claiming they're using "philosophical bullshit" because, while I like philosophy, it can oftentimes be abused and just because something sounds logical doesn't mean it represents reality. Take, for example, the experiment in which a feather is dropped along with a bowling ball (taking wind resistance out of the equation). Logic would dictate that the ball would hit the ground first, but in reality they would both hit the ground at the same time. This is an example of something that seems like a logical conclusion: a heavier object will fall faster, but if you eliminate the affect air has on the objects, they will fall at the same rate and hit the ground at the same time.

It is because of this that I strongly argue that logic by itself (and I'm referring to both our more common "every day logic" and philosophical logic), while extremely helpful and right much of the time, can sometimes get you into trouble. Again, this is why I will not bother with covering the Ontological arguments. They don't prove anything. Their premises may all be true, but that doesn't mean the conclusion is true in reality.

With that in mind, let's begin smashing the logical disaster that is theology.


The Euthyphro Dilemma:


The Euthyphro Dilemma is so named because it comes from Plato's Euthyphro, in which it's asked, "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?"

This essentially means, "Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?" This is also called the divine command theory.

Assuming god exists, it would be horrible to have morality dictated by such a being. The reasons are the following:

1. The first question that must be asked is what god are you interpreting? The god of the bible, or nature?

2. If it is the god of the bible then you have already lost the argument because god commands the murder of the inhabitants of multiple cities in Joshua 10:28-42, "...as the Lord the God of Israel had commanded." [NEB] This is one of many other slaughters found throughout the bible, including, Hosea 13:16:

"Samaria will become desolate because she has rebelled against her God; her babes will fall by the sword and be dashed to the ground, her woman with child shall be ripped up." [NEB]

Clearly, any sane human being will see that this is an immoral act, therefore, god cannot be considered a source for good morals since he commands the murder of many people.

Some christian apologists attempt to explain these acts away. Take the author of the apologist website godandscience.org for example. He says,

"The sixth commandment is "Thou shall not kill."1 Atheists claim that God violated His own commandment in ordering the destruction of entire cities, just to allow the Jews to have a homeland in the Middle East. The Bible confirms that God ordered the killing of thousands of people. Isn't this an open and shut case for the hypocrisy of the God of the Bible?

One thing you have to love about atheists is their extreme appreciation for the King James Version (KJV) translation. The KJV was translated in the early 17th century using an archaic form of modern English. In the last 400 years, English has changed significantly. Unfortunately, the vast majority of those who read the KJV (both believers and unbelievers) are unqualified to know what the text means in many instances because of word meaning changes. In attempting to demonstrate the contradiction of God's commands to Israel and the sixth commandment, atheist cite the KJV translation, "Thou shalt not kill."

However, like English, Hebrew, the language in which most of the Old Testament was written, uses different words for intentional vs. unintentional killing. The verse translated "Thou shalt not kill" in the KJV translation, is translated "You shall not murder"2 in modern translations - because these translations represents the real meaning of the Hebrew text. The Bible in Basic English translates the phrase, "Do not put anyone to death without cause."2 The Hebrew word used here is ratsach,3 which nearly always refers to intentional killing without cause (unless indicated otherwise by context). Hebrew law recognized accidental killing as not punishable. In fact, specific cities were designated as "cities of refuge," so that an unintentional killer could flee to escape retribution.4 The Hebrew word for "kill" in this instance is not ratsach, but nakah, which can refer to either premeditated or unintentional killing, depending upon context.5 Other Hebrew words also can refer to killing.6-8 The punishment for murder was the death sentence.9 However, to be convicted, there needed to be at least two eyewitnesses.10 The Bible also prescribes that people have a right to defend themselves against attack and use deadly force if necessary.11

To answer the question whether God breaks His own commandments, we need to determine if God committed murder (i.e., killed people without cause). [emphasis mine] The Bible is quite clear that God has killed people directly (the most prominent example being the flood) and indirectly (ordered peoples to be killed). If God ordered or participated in the killing of innocent people, then He would be guilty of murder. Let's look at two of the most prominent examples.

According to the Bible, God killed every human except Noah, his wife, his sons, and their wives in the flood. Were any of these people killed unjustly? The Bible says specifically that all people (except Noah and his family) had become corrupted.12 Not only had all people become corrupted, but they were continually plotting evil!13 Is it possible that an entire culture can become corrupted? You bet! Recent history proves the point rather well. When the Nazis took over Germany before WWII, opposition was crushed and removed. When they began their purging of the undesirables (e.g., the Jews), virtually the entire society went along with the plan. Further examples are given on another page. So, the Bible indicates that no innocent people were killed in the flood.

What about when God ordered Joshua and his people to kill every man, woman and child in Canaan?14 What crime could be so great that entire populations of cities were designated for destruction? God told Moses that the nations that the Hebrew were replacing were wicked.15 How "wicked" were these people? The text tells us that they were burning their own sons and daughters in sacrifices to their gods.16 So we see that these people were not really innocent. For these reasons (and others17), God ordered the destruction of the peoples whom the Israelites dispossessed....

The commandment "Thou shalt not kill" is really not as general as the King James version would indicate. The commandment actually refers to premeditated, unjustified killing - murder. Although God ordered the extermination of entire cities, He did so in righteous judgment on a people whose corruption had led to extreme wickedness, including child sacrifice. Did God destroy the righteous along with the wicked? In an exchange with Abraham, God indicated that He would spare the wicked to save the righteous. He demonstrated this principle by saving righteous people from Sodom and Jericho prior to their destruction. The charge that God indiscriminately murdered people does not hold to to critical evaluation of the biblical texts."

So, according to this guy, murder is killing another without cause, therefore god did not murder since he had reasons to do so. Alright, let's take this to it's logical conclusion. A wife cheats on her husband, which gives him a reason to murder her, and so he carries out his plan and kills her. Now, by this apologist's own argument, he would not have murdered his wife because he had a reason; it would have been justified.

Clearly this isn't the case (I've got to say too that this thinking is literally insane. The lengths apologists will go...). Even if we accept this author's claim that the people were "corrupted" and "evil" what exactly does this imply, and who is to judge what is 'corrupt' or 'evil?' The author's claim that the people were "evil" for their acts of child sacrifice sounds like a decent reason (to protect the children) but god is being a hypocrite if that was the case, because in the very next book of the bible god asks for a sacrifice:

Exodus 22:29-30: "Do not hold back offerings from your granaries or your vats. You must give me the first born of your sons. Do the same with your cattle and your sheep. Let them stay with their mothers from seven days, but give them to me on the eighth day (NIV)."

If god cannot even be consistent in what he deems immoral and moral, how are we to judge what is moral or not by looking at the actions of god in the bible?

Again, we're back at the same question as before. "Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?"

3. A theist could look around at nature and conclude this god is a wonderful god, but nature, as even Charles Darwin wrote, is often cruel and inhumane. Animals kill and eat others for food, sometimes while still alive. Natural cells in a body turn cancerous and a person dies, etc.

True, there are very many things in nature that we could call "beautiful" but there are many cruel things as well, and if god is given credit for the good, he must also be given credit for the bad.

If god's commands cannot be considered moral, then is it possible that god is responsible for some kind of "moral sense" within us, which helps guide us?

This has been proposed by theologians for centuries. Christian apologists even today use this claim of "Natural Law Theory." One example is David Marshall, author of the book The Truth Behind the New Atheism, who seemingly tries to dismiss the findings of evolutionary psychology which is studying the innate nature of our moral sense, by saying that, "The naivete displayed by [Marc] Hauser's questionnaire is even more remarkable. Can a Harvard professor writing about morality have never heard of Natural Law Theory? Christians (and others) have been talking about it for thousands of years" (page 103). Marshall seems to be trying to give credit to theologians for this concept and not science for discovering it's truthful biological basis.

First of all, I wouldn't trust a "moral sense" put inside me by a being who is clearly hypocritical in nature and oftentimes horribly cruel.

Second, if god supposedly placed this moral sense within all humans, then how can theists claim that atheists are immoral if god gave this moral sense to everyone? Atheists and christians would be getting their morals from the same source. Unfortunately, this isn't the case. Many theists insist homosexuals are to be put to death, but this isn't shared by atheists and others. So, where are theists getting this information? The bible. If god is supposedly the author of the bible, or at least inspired it, and god is the one who created this moral sense, why wasn't he consistent with what he deems moral (according to divine command theory, whatever god commands is moral)? Our human conscience (for most of us anyway) sees the persecution of homosexuals as cruel and wrong, and yet it is a law given in the book supposedly written/inspired by this same god.

A third stumbling block is the fact that god has never been proven. If god cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt then the most logical answer for our morality would be our biology and our culture.

A related point are people who claim to do helpful and harmful things because god supposedly told them to. Because there are people who have supposedly been told to commit both good and bad acts, this doesn't do anything to fix the contradictory messages that god seems to send (assuming he is real). There are people who feel compelled by god to help the poor, but there are also people who commit horrible atrocities, such as Dena Schlosser who chopped off her eleven month old girl's arms because god told her to.

Now, an apologist will likely say that Schlosser was clearly insane and god would never command someone to do such a thing. But if they dismiss this woman's testimony so quickly, why do they accept a christian's so easily, as long as they're doing something good? The simple answer? Bias.

Morality has nothing to do with god and, therefore, it cannot be used as any kind of "evidence" of god.


The Cosmological Argument:


The Cosmological argument has a few variations but ultimately it is the famed "first cause" argument. Theologians postulate that the universe cannot possibly be eternal and therefore something had to have brought it into existence. They call this thing god.

It can be broken down as follows:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

There are a few major flaws with this. First, theologians assume that the universe can't be eternal; that it's impossible for the universe to just be, to just exist. Second, because of their claims that the universe cannot be eternal they then make a wild claim full of hypocrisy and nonsense and state that their god is eternal and does not need a cause. Third, they also assume that events that took place in the past could not go on indefinitely. But again, they contradict themselves and claim their god is infinite and has always existed, though they can never articulate "where" their god was or" what" he was doing the eternity before he just happened to create this universe. A related point is the fact that if the currently most widely accepted model of the big bang is one in which time didn't exist before the big bang, how could god exist in a "time" before time even existed? It's a contradiction. Fourth, with the Kalam Cosmological Argument claiming god has no beginning, thus needs no cause, they have no proof of this, and it's unknown if the universe even had a cause to begin with. The big bang we know of may have been just one out of countless "bangs" that have occurred throughout time, following Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok's theory.

Because of these facts and the lack of knowledge human beings have regarding the universe (though more is being learned through science; religion sure hasn't done anything to help out on the matter) no one truly knows if the universe is eternal or not (though there are some plausible scientific theories that state the universe could be eternal such as those endorsed by Paul J. Steinhardt and Neil Turok, authors of the book Endless Universe: Beyond the Big Bang), but one thing is for sure, completely contradicting themselves in order to claim "god did it" is a completely bogus answer and leaves one to ask: "If nothing can be eternal, who made god?" Theologians have yet to come up with a reasonable answer that doesn't violate some scientific principal or use the bible for their proof, ahem, Ray Comfort.

The fact is, though, that there are things that happen at the subatomic level which appear to have no cause. "When an atom in an excited energy level drops to a lower level and emits a photon, a particle of light, we find no cause of that event. Similarly, no cause is evident in the decay of a radioactive nucleus" (Source: God: The Failed Hypothesis, by Victor J. Stenger, page 124). So it seems it's known that things can happen without a cause, which would put to rest the entire cosmological argument at the beginning. Since it's known that some things happen without a cause then it's scientifically possible for the universe to have come about without some definite cause.

Even assuming that the universe wasn't eternal, and the previous research was flawed in some way, it's pretty presumptuous of them to claim their god did it. They have no proof. All they have is a book written by very superstitious individuals who didn't know what we do today about the world and how it works. How theists can claim this book that is full of oftentimes silly and cruel statements and stories tells us how the universe came to be is dumb founding.


Teleological Arguments:


Teleological arguments are arguments in which theists cite the apparent design and order in the universe as proof of a creator.

To quote Nichloas Everitt about this argument, "This argues from the fact that the universe is orderly, or displays regularities, to the conclusion that there must be a cosmic intelligence responsible for creating or imposing and maintaining the order."

As far as design, this implies intelligent design and creationism. Both of these arguments I've written about at some length so I will point you to other sources for that information.

Life shows evidence of evolution, not of being created:

Another "Gap" Is Found

Earth is not the only planet located in the "sweet spot" for life to thrive; it's also known for a fact that life can thrive even in immensely hot and cold temperatures:

Design in the Universe...There's No god Behind It!

More Evidence Against the "Design" Argument

Ignorance and More 'Design' Nonsense

A website that is excellent and handily debunks many claims of "design" and "order" is the TalkOrigins Archive (along with many other creationist and intelligent design lies and deceptions).

The fine-tuning argument suffers from the same lack of reasoning, lack of scientific knowledge, and "god of the gaps" thinking that dominate all arguments for the existence of god.

First of all, it seems that many numbers have been manipulated to make these constants seem extraordinary. Some examples are irrelevant. Victor J. Stenger says, "Many of the examples of fine-tuning found in theological literature suffer from simple misunderstandings of physics. For example, any references to the fine-tuning of constants like the speed of light,c, Planck's constant, h, or Newton's gravitational constant, G, are irrelevant since these are all arbitrary constants whose values simply define the system of units being used. Only 'dimensionless' numbers that do not depend on units, such as the ratio of the strengths of gravity and electromagnetism are meaningful.

Some of the 'remarkable precision' of physical parameters that people talk about is highly misleading because it depends on the choice of units. For example, theologian John Jefferson Davis asserts, 'If the mass of of neutrinos were 5 x 10 - 34 instead of 5 x 10- 35 kg [kilogram], because of their great abundance in the universe, the additional gravitational mass would result in a contracting rather than expanding universe.' This sounds like fine-tuning by one part in 10- 35. However, as philosopher Neil Manson points out, this is like saying that 'if he had been one part in 10- 16 of a light year shorter (that is, one meter shorter), Michael Jordan would not have been the word's greatest basketball player.....'

One of the many major flaws with most studies of the anthropic principle coincidences is that the investigators vary a single parameter while assuming all the others remain fixed. They further compound this mistake by proceeding to calculate meaningless probabilities based on the grossly erroneous assumptions that all the parameters are independent....

Physicist Anthony Aguire has independently examined the universes that result when six cosmological parameters are simultaneously varied by orders of magnitude, and found he could construct cosmologies in which 'stars, planets, and intelligent life can plausibly arise.' Physicist Craig Hogan has done another independent analysis that leads to similar conclusions. And, theoretical physicists at Kyoto University in Japan have shown that heavy elements needed for life will be present in even the earliest stars independent of what the exact parameters for star formation may have been" (Source: God: The Failed Hypothesis, pages 145 - 149).

Other theories seem to put the Anthropic Principle to rest, including possible multiple universes, and string theory. If our universe is just one out of many the chances are very good for different values in the universe to happen to be within the right parameters to facilitate life.

According to Gordon L. Kane, and associates, "In string theories all of the parameters of the theory - in particular all quark and lepton masses, and all coupling strength - are calculable, so there are parameters left to allow anthropic arguments... "

Even Stephen Hawking's more recent studies seem to cast doubt upon the Anthropic Principle. "He proposed that our universe is much less 'special' than the proponents of the Anthropic Principle claim it is. According to Hawking, there is a 98 percent chance that a universe of a type as our own will come from the Big Bang [emphasis in original]. Further, using the basic wave function of the universe as a basis, Hawking's equations indicate that such a universe can come into existence without relation to anything prior to it, meaning that it could come out of nothing" (Source: Did Man Create God?, by David E. Comings, M.D., page 272).

Because physics and cosmology are not my strong suit I suggest reading Victor J. Stenger's book dealing in much detail with many of these arguments.

One of the best arguments I've heard against the anthropic principle isn't scientific arguments, but one that just relies on pure logic. If the universe wasn't suitable for life we wouldn't have evolved to witness it! Proof of our being here is no proof of any designer or creator.

After giving the previous examples of false reasoning and evidence that proves several of the fine-tuning and design arguments incorrect, I think it stands to reason that most others are just as faulty. That's something I've noticed about theists' arguments. After you debunk one they throw another argument out at you; you then successfully debunk it, and so it goes again and again. It would be nearly impossible to catalogue each and every single argument ever used, but again, if a majority are found wanting then most likely the others are as well. Especially since their beliefs oftentimes blind them from seeing the truth anyway, they won't give up until they find something you cannot effectively answer. Then they'll raise their arms in victory (after about a thousand wrong arguments in a row), but once again, the gaps in our knowledge is really the only avenue theists have for arguing their god. If that's the case they really have no arguments at all.


Appeals to Miracles:


I find the use of miracles to be one of the most absurd "proofs" of god's existence. It is once again a "god of the gaps" argument: because we don't understand precisely how someone may have been healed, it was a miracle. Most of these are far and few between. For example, in Richard Dawkins' two part series called The Root of All Evil? Part 1, it was said how within the last century and a half there were "sixty-six declared miracles" to have taken place out of the yearly 80,000 people who go a pool of water where the virgin marry is said to have appeared. Obviously not anywhere close to a significant percentage to declare any genuine miracles.

Other than this example, the failure rate of prayer is another devastating blow to the theologian. I've gone over this evidence in the past, along with other arguments against the supernatural, and those are located here.

Instead of trying to debate whether or not miracles exist I try to argue against the entire concept of the supernatural, or the existence of an immaterial world. If it cannot be reasonably shown that the supernatural exists, then no miracle could possibly occur. I have given several challenges for anyone to give me unbiased evidence (no personal accounts, secondhand stories) of the supernatural. No one has been able to present any evidence, nor debunk my two papers Evidence Against the Supernatural, parts 1 and 2.

The fact of the matter is that there have been many people have have experienced "something" in their lives they cannot explain but it seems that the mind is wired for personification and people apply human traits to objects and events. People tend to "see" something intervene in their lives if it goes the way they want; if their prayer was answered, if someone's injuries are healed all of a sudden, if a disease disappears. Again, just because these events occur doesn't even imply the existence of god! What if it was some other being that humans have never discovered? What if it was a different god? What if there were laws of nature that we haven't discovered yet and that's what was responsible for such and such event occurring? If these things happened due to this unknown law of nature, then it couldn't be considered a miracle nor supernatural.

There are countless examples of this throughout history. It's not a stretch of the imagination to any degree to think that these current claims of some supernatural agency are just as likely to be false as the ones that happened in the past. Because of the many natural events that took place in the past, lightning, wind, and other forces, human beings were sure to give these events human traits and think "something" caused them to happen. It's only with our more advanced knowledge do we know how wind and other natural disasters happen. No doubt the same will take place with certain instances of a medical "miracle" or other such events in the future.


Religious Experiences:


In this final section, I will attempt to argue why I think religious experiences aren't any form of evidence for god, let alone the supernatural, because of the large body of research which shows that these experiences are happening at the level of the brain only, and most religious experiences have been duplicated in subjects when certain areas of the brain are stimulated.

Mostly performed on epilepsy patients these tests confirm that when the temporal lobes, amygdala and hippocampus are stimulated many different experiences take place. Everything from out of body experiences, deja vu, a feeling of not being in this world, hearing voices, feeling a presence, etc.

In fact, one man who had been diagnosed with left temporal lobe epilepsy, his brain was stimulated at the point of the inferior temporal lobe and at this time he exclaimed, "I'm going to die." When he was asked if he saw anything, he replied, "No, God said I am going to die."

One case reported that while a man's brain was stimulated in the right superior surface of the temporal lobe he had an out of body experience. He exclaimed, "Oh God! I am leaving my body!"

In a case with a twenty-five year old woman who had TLE (Temporal Lobe Epilepsy), an MRI showed a right-sided, mesial temporal focus and hippocampal sclerosis. The auras, seizures, and religious thoughts she was experiencing were almost completely eliminated after the removal of the right amygdala and hippocampus.

In 1997 Vilayanur Ramachandran developed the idea of "The God Module" when studying epilepsy patients. During the experiments one subject with TLE felt a "oneness with the Creator" and others made statements like, "I finally understand what it is all about..."

Other experiences elicited feelings of a god and feeling as if they were "filled with the spirit" and felt the presence of god (Source: Did Man Create God?, by David E. Comings, M.D., pages 347, 349, 354, 355, 362).

This is only a tiny fraction of the experiments and examples of this kind of experiment. Direct stimulation of the temporal lobes seem to consistently bring out spiritual and religious thoughts, feelings, and visions.

This seems to be bedrock evidence that all of these religious experiences are caused completely at the level of the brain and humanities' experiences of god and spirituality are truly just in our heads.

Obviously religious believers would likely respond that this is proof of a god; that god placed these parts of our brains inside us so we might be aware of his presence. It's an interesting hypothesis, but I don't see how that's possible. god supposedly will send his creations to hell dependant upon if they believe or not based on some clue he left in our brains that might or might not give us the sensations of his presence. That's like rolling the dice and whoever gets a certain number gets themselves engulfed in flames, and others get "saved" just by the luck of the throw. Not a very kind thing to do in my opinion (of course theists always have silly excuses for the cruel acts of their god).

Another problem with this is the fact that this "spiritual feeling" one might characterize as "god" just points us to a belief in "something out there" that's bigger than us; points to ghosts, fairies, and a multitude of gods. If this belief was truly put in place by the one true god (according to christians) then why do humans have such a variety of beliefs about spiritual agents and gods? Wouldn't god implant a belief that just included him if he is the one and only true god in existence, if it was him, and only him, he wanted his creations to worship?

Based on this evidence, it seems clear to me that this "spiritual feeling" does not point to any god; the god a person believes in depends upon the culture they grow up in, and is not "hardwired" into our minds; it is only this vague spiritual belief that is hardwired (possibly for survival purposes and to cope with the fear of death) and humans built upon these vague, innate beliefs by making up everything else about these various spiritual agencies.

Because there is no evidence of any gods the most likely explanation is that these experiences caused the belief in gods and not the other way around.


Conclusion:


I'm sure there are many apologists who may feel as if I've created strawmen arguments, or did not represent all theological views during this discussion. I would argue strongly that I created no strawmen; I consulted the books of philosophers and ex-theologians such as John Loftus in representing the arguments of theists (and arguing against).

I also think it would be a near impossible task to present every theological argument, or variation of those arguments. I tried to pick the most common ones and go from there. Besides, most arguments are variations upon a basic theme anyhow, so if I debunked a major argument I likely debunked its variations as well.

It's sad that the a large majority of the human race must feel it has to lie to itself for whatever reasons it has for believing in some higher power or god. What it ultimately amounts to is ignoring and/or distorting evidence, and having a preconceived bias that leads you to believe in your god (while disbelieving in everyone else's for the same reasons they don't believe in yours!). This is surely the case with many believers and one such example is the christian apologist William Lane Craig, as told from John Loftus' book Why I Became an Atheist (page 214):

"Mark Smith (of www.jcnot4me.com) set up the following scenario for Craig: 'Dr. Craig, for the sake of argument let's pretend that a time machine gets built. You and I hop in it, and travel back to the day before Easter, 33 AD. We park it outside the tomb of Jesus. We wait. Easter morning rolls around, and nothing happens. We continue to wait. After several weeks of waiting, still nothing happens. There is no resurrection - Jesus is quietly rotting away in the tomb.'

Smith asked Craig, given this scenario, if he would then give up Christianity, having seen with his own two eyes that Jesus did not rise from the dead. Smith wrote: 'His answer was shocking, and quite unexpected. He told me, face to face, that he would STILL believe in Jesus, he would STILL believe in the resurrection, and he would STILL remain a Christian. When asked, in light of his being a personal eyewitness to the fact that there WAS no resurrection, he replied that due to the witness of the 'holy spirit' within him, he would assume a trick of some sort had been played on him while watching Jesus' tomb. This self-induced blindness astounded me.'"

There is no evidence of god in our biology, in the cosmos, nor within our uses of logic. This is why I often make the claim that there is no evidence for god, as I did here, in the review of the first chapter, despite these arguments being held up as such. I've even been insulted because of this view (though no one has yet to offer one argument against my position).

Because of the facts and logic that I have presented I see no reason to believe in any god. There are miles wide, gaping holes in every single argument ever put forth for a god and these arguments will only get weaker as science discovers more and more about the universe and us.

It is precisely for this reason that I consider christian apologetics to be a huge pile of bullshit, and half ass attempts by unenlightened and superstitious individuals to convince themselves that they aren't going to die.


UPDATE 4-3-09

It has come to my attention that some of Victor J. Stenger's statements that I cited may be false, but as with just about everything I write I usually think two or three steps ahead of any possible detractors, which is why I stated the following in the above post:

Even assuming that the universe wasn't eternal, and the previous research was flawed in some way, it's pretty presumptuous of them to claim their god did it. They have no proof. All they have is a book written by very superstitious individuals who didn't know what we do today about the world and how it works. How theists can claim this book that is full of oftentimes silly and cruel statements and stories tells us how the universe came to be is dumb founding.

I said this because I am well aware of the fluid nature of science. As more data is collected old theories are put to rest and are replaced with new ones that fit the data better. Because of the non static nature of science you can't always count on everything being completely accurate at all times, especially in the fast moving world of cosmology where they're finding new things at a fairly fast pace. There is also a lot of disagreement among scientists so to proclaim Stenger as the ultimate authority would be foolish. Of course he could be wrong (and as someone has informed me, he very well could be) and I don't deny that, but because he is wrong does nothing to my case. It's still no proof of a god and where I cited Stenger was just a small part of my argument.

As I tried to show throughout the post, all arguments for god are nothing more than "god of the gap" arguments: because theists are at a loss to explain something we don't yet understand or something miraculous, they wish to subscribe a god to plug the "gaps" in our knowledge. But, this is severely logically flawed way of thinking because theists are also at a loss to explain their god. They just assume their god exists and that it's necessary to have this "uncaused cause" to cause the universe. That's preposterous and contradictory to say the least. I might as well say that some leprechaun caused the universe because it's utilizing the exact same flawed reasoning.

The overall premises of my arguments stand untouched and thus far unrefuted. All arguments for god are nothing more than illogical attempts to plug "gaps" in our knowledge and that's that. That's no more "proof" of a god than me trying to explain how my sandwich disappeared by claiming the tooth fairy got hungry.

UPDATE 4-6-09

I've responded to a few criticisms (though they are mostly misunderstandings and pure ignorance) by one Joe Hinman, who tries, but fails miserably, to rebut any of my above arguments. I respond to his claims here.

UPDATE 4-21-09

I created a post pointing out errors in a christian apologists' arguments against my claim that all arguments for god are nothing more than "god of the gap" arguments. Click here to read it.

UPDATE 5-28-10

I recently finished writing a rebuttal to several of famed Christian apologist William Lane Craig's arguments for god. Some are repeated from this paper, but there is some new stuff in the new one that you might find interesting as well. It can be found here.