skepticblog:

johnnyis:

“Barrow and Tippler, two physicists, in their book ‘The Anthropic Cosmological Principle’ list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would occur, the sun would’ve ceased to be a main sequence star and incinerated the earth. And they calculate the probability of the evolution of the human genome to be somewhere between 4^-180^110,000 and 4^-360^110,000. So, if evolution did occur on this planet, it was literally a miracle, and therefore evidence for the existence of God.”

—

William Lane Craig (via martelthechristianrapper)

And this, kids, is called the argument from authority. It’s a useful rhetoric tactic that William Craig uses quite often in his debates. He also does the fun, “My opponent says x, while no competent (historian, scholar, etc.) would ever say x.” It’s all blatant rhetoric that adds nothing to the conversation. The paragraph above is a mere assertion.  

The anthropic principle as theists use it is a straw man. While it does exist in scientific thinking, it is a cautionary statement against making unwarranted assumptions based on the observer’s frame of reference.

In fact, I will now use their same reasoning to prove God’s existence with a stack of playing cards:

It’s a common fact that the chances of getting a royal flush (A♠ K♠ Q♠ J♠ 10♠) in poker is 649,740 to 1.  It is interesting to note though, that there are four suits and therefore, four possible royal flushes in a deck of cards. That means that the chances of getting any specific random poker hand of five cards (K♥ J♣ 8♣ 7♦ 3♠) is actually four times more unlikely than getting a royal flush. However we simply do not grant any statistical significance to this hand in the games rules.

 The fundamental core of this argument is a case of the theist being dealt a random poker hand, and then proclaiming after the fact, “Wow! The chances of me getting this specific hand of cards is 2,598,960 to 1. It must have been divine intervention.”

There is absolutely no evidence to support the claim that the human frame of reference is statistically insignificant. The only significance to our personal existence or frame of reference, is the significance that we choose to grant it post hoc. 

I’ll end things with a Douglas Adams quote, to counter Craig’s:

 “Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.”

The difference is the scientifically-gathered evidence for evolution versus the complete lack of scientific evidence for the existence of a god.  The improbable existence of (a) does not, in any way, point to the improbable existence of (b), especially when there is no clear causal relationship between the two propositions ([a] being “Evolution exists” and [b] being “God exists”).  It’s an attempt to make a logical claim without making any use of logic.

Also, I love the quote from Adams.  I first heard it last semester in my Philosophy of Religion class while discussing Paley’s Argument to Design.

27

February

62 notes

This text was reblogged from skepticblog and originally by martelthechristianrapper.

#philosophy #skepticism #atheism #christianity #god

O'Malley introduces same-sex marriage bill →

Gov. Martin O’Malley introduced legislation Monday night to legalize same-sex marriage in Maryland, presenting a bill to the General Assembly that aides said would offer broad protections for groups that would not want to perform or honor same-sex marriages.

24

January

93 notes

#Baltimore #Maryland #equality #human rights #religion #christian #christianity #marriage

(Source: ummagumma-)

06

December

69 notes

This photo was reblogged from godlessquotes and originally by ummagumma-.

#Nietzsche #quote #Christianity #Atheism #faith

On Evil, Humanity, and a World without God

I. An Introduction

            Few challenges to classical theism are as widely known as the problem of evil.  The basis of the argument is simple enough to follow: the existence of evil in the universe creates a contradiction with the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God (Rowe and Wainwright, 210).  At face value, the argument holds some power- were God to possess the aforementioned characteristics, would the universe not, then, have been created without the existence of evil?  Theologians have wrestled with this argument for centuries, offering attempted refutations such as the Free Will Defense, an argument stating evil comes from misuse of human freedom, an attribute made justifiable by the intrinsic good of providing humans with freedom (Rowe and Wainwright, 211) and the Greater Goods Defense, an argument stating that evil is necessary for the existence of greater goods (Rowe and Wainwright, 211).  I aim to refute the stated arguments attempting to discredit the problem of evil and provide a rational, in depth look at its legitimacy and evidence in the modern world.

            Before continuing, it is important to clarify the evil to which I am referring.  There are traditionally two types of evil called into play when discussing this issue, namely moral evil (that which contends with human action, such as murder) and natural evil (that which contends with suffering outside of human action, such as natural disasters or other physical forces resulting in suffering).  Both of these have a place in this argument as an omnipotent God has the power to interject himself (male pronouns are only being used because of tradition, the gender of an imaginary being has very little weight as far as I am concerned) into any situation in order to prevent suffering.  To deny either as appropriate in this argument is unnecessary, as a creator of the universe must have created the forces responsible for natural evil and the capacity for evil in humans.

II. An Argument: The Greater Goods Defense

In his paper “The ‘Soul-Making’ Theodicy,” John Hick says that evil exists in the world to test moral character and give humans the opportunity to grow into “the perfected persons whom the New Testament calls ‘children of God’.” (Hick, 254)  Hick claims that one who can overcome the vast temptations of the world “is good in a richer and more valuable sense” than one who had been born with this goodness intrinsically instilled in his or her person (Hick, 254).  Essentially, Hick conveys the point that evil and suffering exist in the world so that humans have the capability of growing stronger and becoming Christ-like, similarly to how situations like a “broken heart” will often end in the despairing person coming through wiser and emotionally stronger.  The pain has a greater good when all is said and done.

Hick’s argument makes a valiant effort to combat the problem of evil, but quickly falls apart under analysis.  First and foremost, he contends only with the problem of natural evil.  Hick does not touch on issues of moral evil such as murder, an event that in no way allows the sufferer to grow in character, rather eliminating the character from this plane of existence.  In the same vein, Hick ignores life lost as a result of the natural evil in this world.  Take, for instance, the Haitian earthquake of 2010.  Official estimates place approximately 316,000 dead, along with another 300,000 injured (“Magnitude 7.0- HAITI REGION”).  Statistically, it is irrational to assume that these hundreds of thousands of people left lifeless were all Christ-like enough in nature to be accepted into the paradise of the Christian heaven. This is accentuated even more when one takes into account the necessity of being a Christian in order to enter this divine paradise.  The only attempted justification of this made by Hick is to say that natural disasters bring about a sense of unity and compassion in helping those who have suffered (Hick, 257).  This paints a very morbid and disturbing implication: human life and physical suffering are entirely inconsequential to God.  People are simply pawns on a chessboard, thrown in and out of play at the slightest will of a jaded creator.  A God such as this would be on par with murderous rulers such as Adolf Hitler and Mao Zedong in his wanton disregard for human life in attempt to promote an ideology.  A God such as this could in no way be assumed to be omnibenevolent, as is supposedly a defining characteristic of him.

Secondly, the notion that suffering exists to condition humanity into a Christ-like state does not match the reality of this world.  We can look no further than our current political establishment for verification of this.  Traditionally, liberals in office promote legislation aiming to directly help those in need through institutions such as welfare or universal health care.  Conservatives, however, oppose the aforementioned institutions, often setting forth legislation to cut funding in them or arguing to eliminate or block them as a whole.  Hick references moral integrity, unselfishness, and compassion as qualities to strive for in becoming Christ-like (Hick, 256), all of which are supported by the selfless lifestyle Christ is presumed to have led based on Biblical teachings.  However, religious faith is strongly negatively correlated with political liberalism (Dawkins, 102).  Our leaders most like Christ are the same ones most likely to turn away from him; those most likely to see the intrinsic value of helping those less fortunate are the same who are likely to reject the notion of a cosmic force.  This is not to say those with a conservative political ideology are incapable of humanitarian efforts or will refuse to help those in need, rather a generalized analysis based on commonly held political beliefs.  If the ultimate goal of evil on Earth is to condition humans into Christ-like beings who are, in turn, worthy of the kingdom of heaven, the more likely lack of faith among those who tend to act in Christ-like ways provides a very distinct impasse as they would not be accepted into heaven.  Furthermore, there is not sufficient evidence to say suffering will lead one to Christ.  In fact, it is far more common to see suffering turn those experiencing it away from positivity, an issue with Hick’s argument that he acknowledges towards the end of his paper: “…we see good turned to evil, kindness to bitterness, hope to despair.  And from our own observations, even when supplemented by the entire scroll of recorded history, we are not entitled to say either that all sin leads to redemption or that all suffering is used for good in its final issue.” (Hick, 259)  These issues leave Hick’s attempt at displaying a greater good empty, and therefore not damaging to the overall problem of evil with the existence of a theistic God.

III.  A Second Argument: The Free Will Defense

The Free Will Defense is commonly associated with contemporary philosopher Alvin Plantinga, claiming God created humans with free will to commit actions that are either morally good or morally evil, thus causing moral evil (Plantinga, 272).  This does not detract from God’s goodness, however, as allowing the existence of free will is a greater good than not allowing it.  This argument relies wholly on the assumption that this Earth was created with the libertarian view of free will in mind.  It also focuses only on moral evil, ignoring natural evil as free will presumably has no effect on it.  Plantinga’s argument continues on to question the possible worlds God could have created, but these are not necessary to address for the purposes of this paper.

The largest problem with the Free Will Defense is the blatant assumption of libertarianism in regards to free will.  There is no evidence to support this claim.  All things in the universe move in some defined and predictable way- view, for instance, the orbit of planets in this solar system around the Sun, or the slow rotation of the Milky Way galaxy.  There is no reason to assume the human mind works under any other condition, especially when paired with the reality that a physical body must still abide by the same laws of physics as all other things in the universe.  A lack of empirical evidence leaves any hypothesis on the nature of human will impossible to either verify or refute.  The existence of an omniscient God, however, does throw a cog in the works of the argument by providing grounds for assumption of theological fatalism, the idea that God’s foreknowledge of future events causes human action to be predetermined and, in turn, unfree (Zagzebski).  This paper does not concern the nature of human freedom, and I will not spend unnecessary time arguing it; rather, I find that the lack of empirical evidence for or against free will leaves the defense not strong enough to be the powerful counter to the problem of evil it is commonly thought to be.  The argument is only further weakened by the lack of reasoning behind why free will is assumed to be intrinsically good and its ignorance of natural evil which, assuming God’s omnipotence, is directly adjustable and controlled without impeding on free will.

IV.  A Logical Argument from Evil, Expanded

            The logical argument from evil traditionally makes two assertions in arguing against a theistic God, essentially that (1) a theistic God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent and (2) evil exists (Rowe and Wainwright, 210).  The attempt is, of course, to display a contradiction between premise (1) and premise (2), thus invalidating premise (1) as (2) is clearly observable in countless aspects of the world and daily life.  As Plantinga notes, however, (1) and (2) do not necessarily create a contradiction (Plantinga, 273).  For this reason, the logical argument from evil needs to dig significantly deeper in order to create the desired inconsistency or contradiction in order to disprove a theistic God.  The argument would then continue that (3) a good being always eliminates evil as far as it can (Rowe and Wainwright, 210).  It is rational to accept, then, that (4) finite beings may have morally exonerating reasons for allowing or causing evil and (5) these reasons depend on the finite being’s limitations of power, knowledge, or opportunity (Bishop and Perszyk, 111-112).  The following can thus be stated, that (6) the theistic God is not a finite being (as is the implication of his omni-qualities) and (6a) the theistic God is without limitations of power, knowledge, or opportunity.  Without the aforementioned limitations, it is easy to step to the thought that (7) the theistic God does not have morally exonerating reasons for allowing or causing evil.  Premise (7) effectively creates the desired contradiction in the logical argument from evil with premise (1), specifically the existence of God’s omnibenevolence.  Therefore, we can rationally assume (8) the theistic God, as is commonly defined, does not exist.

            This argument does make one glaring assumption that deserves note, namely that omnipotence is subject to logical limitations (Bishop and Perszyk, 113).  This assumption is justifiable because there is no empirical evidence that anything is not subject to logical limitation.  Though the theist may claim that God’s omnipotence is not limited to the hypothetically small range of human logic (small being used only in comparison to the hypothetically vast cognitive capabilities of God), the existence of a being who is impossible to empirically study and possesses characteristics that are both impossible to empirically study and impossible to logically justify seems vastly less likely than the universal limitation of logic in what can and cannot happen.  This does not need a syllogistic form for justification; rather, it is a product of common sense.  Furthermore, the Bible supports this claim.  Genesis 3:22 states outright, “Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil.”  The notion, then, that the works of God concerning good and evil is beyond human understanding and logic is thereby refuted as God himself supposedly stated the opposite.

            The expanded logical argument from evil holds up as God has no morally exonerating reasons for allowing evil to exist in the world.  To continue, (3) can now be called back into play, as creating evil without an intrinsically good overall purpose is the exact opposite of a prevention of evil to the best of God’s abilities.  Not only, then, does the assumed omnibenevolence of the theistic God fall to the wayside (and, in turn, the existence of the classically defined God of theism), but it raises another rather startling point: if there is any God, he possesses fundamentally evil qualities.  His instilling of the capacity of evil into humankind would be a pure reflection of himself, his actions of destruction and chaos would have no justification outside of God wanting to see what would happen.  Just as no ruler of a country would deserve the support of its people were he or she to wantonly and purposelessly kill them, a God such as this does not deserve the worship of billions worldwide.

V.  A Conclusion and a World without God

            When asked to explain the reasoning behind a belief in God, many theists will move quickly to a feeling, one which is assumed to be the presence of God in life.  I cannot dispute this feeling, for it was only a few short years ago when I thought the same thing.  The emotion is a beautiful thing, one of peace, stability, and an overriding love.  It is as if everything is okay in the world; it is as if every terrible atrocity is nothing more than a book out of place on a cosmic shelf.  My faith was called into question in my teenage years as I watched numerous people, both close to me and distant, die untimely deaths.  Try as I might, I could not rationalize it.  It was as if my notion of existence had been shaken to its core.  What grew was admittedly cynicism at first.  I looked at the horrors of the world committed in the name of God- the Crusades, the September 11 terror attacks, the countless molestations of innocent children by priests, and the existence of a divine justice no longer made sense.  I felt lost.  I was angry.  The force that I had perceived to be the most powerful and overriding one in both my life and the universe had been taken from me by the reality of this world.  It took months for me to make sense of things, all the while lingering in a longing agnosticism.  The world seemed to mean very little if it was nothing more than a ball of rock floating through an infinite abyss.  Two summers after this existential crisis began, my family decided to take a week away from life and go to West Virginia.  The place we went was secluded, free from both traffic and cellular reception.  I remember waking early one morning and, after a casual breakfast with my family, packing a lunch and walking through the dense forests surrounding the area.  I walked for hours, the cool shade of the trees interjected only occasionally by rays of an August sun.  I eventually reached a clearing and decided to break for lunch.  Before I could begin, however, I noticed a cliff not far from where I had laid my things and was drawn to see what was beyond it.  As I set my feet on the edge and viewed the endless treetops for miles, that feeling clung to every fiber of my being once again- that safety, that love, that cosmic peace I had thought died along with my faith.  Two things came of this; firstly, I learned that this feeling had not been instilled in me by any force outside of my own mind.  It took only the pure beauty of this planet to reawaken it.  It was the feeling of home and belonging, of the unity between myself and something greater than I could ever be.  Secondly, it instantly humbled me with the knowledge of how small I am in the grand scheme of things.  These ancient oaks surrounding me had seen countless visitors crumble in the same awe; the stone beneath my feet could tell stories of a time before man could speak.

            I appeal now not to reason, but to the hope of progress: humankind does not need God in order to lead a moral and righteous existence.  If there truly is some sort of cosmic justice out there, I have no doubt it would understand the abandoning of such a thick and controversial barrier between cultures in favor of unity, of an embrace of humanity.  We do not need God to attain purpose and meaning in life, either.  Our purpose is defined in every step we take and every gust of wind that may brush our cheek.  Our meaning is found in our power to create.  When I look at the wonders of the world, I see no evidence of an unseen creator; rather, I find testaments to the unending power and beauty of the human mind and the beautiful luck that has allowed it to evolve as such.  I am stuck to wonder how far we could have gone had it not been for the Dark Ages, or how far we could go without fear of damnation influencing legislation and world views.  No hand will reach down to repair our mistakes; no new home will be given to us once we destroy the one that has eternally fostered our existence.  Though our time here is finite, we each are free to shape this world the best we can.  Every breath we take is fuel for a better tomorrow.  This life is ours.

Bibliography

Rowe, William L., and William J. Wainwright, eds. “The Problem of Evil.” Philosophy of Religion: Selected Readings. Vol. 3. Orlando: Harcourt Brace College, 1998. 210-15. Print.

Hick, John. “The “Soul-Making” Theodicy.” Philosophy of Religion: Selected Readings. Ed. William L. Rowe and William J. Wainwright. Vol. 3. Orlando: Harcourt Brace College, 1998. 251-59. Print.

Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2006. Print.

“Magnitude 7.0 - HAITI REGION.” U.S. Geological Survey Earthquake Hazards Program. 23 Feb. 2010. Web. 01 Dec. 2011. <http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqinthenews/2010/us2010rja6/>.

Plantinga, Alvin. “The Free Will Defense.” Philosophy of Religion: Selected Readings. Ed. William L. Rowe and William J. Wainwright. Vol. 3. Orlando: Harcourt Brace College, 1998. 259-84. Print.

Zagzebski, Linda. “Foreknowledge and Free Will (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).”Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 25 Aug. 2011. Web. 01 Dec. 2011. <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-will-foreknowledge/>.

Bishop, Jon, and Ken Perszyk. “The Normatively Relativised Logical Argument from Evil.” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 21 Oct. 2011. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. <http://www.metapress.com/content/p847675kt2760002/fulltext.pdf>.

03

December

10 notes

#personal #atheism #christianity #god #jesus #a priori #the problem of evil #the greater good #free will #theism #evil #humanity #world #this paper was such a bitch

"I have a charming pamphlet, translated from the French, describing how, quite recently, five years ago, a murderer, Richard, was executed- a young man, I believe, of three and twenty, who repented and was converted to the Christian faith at the very scaffold. This Richard was an illegitimate child who was given as a child of six by his parents to some shepherds on the Swiss mountains. They brought him up to work for them. He grew up like a little wild beast among them. The shepherds taught him nothing, and scarcely fed or clothed him, but sent him out at seven to herd the flock in the cold and wet, and no one hesitated or even scrupled to treat him so. Quite the contrary, they thought they had every right, for Richard had been given to them as a chattel, and they did not even see the necessity of feeding him. Richard himself describes how in those years, like the Prodigal Son in the Gospel, he longed to eat of the mash given to the pigs, which were fattened for sale. But they wouldn’t even give him that, and beat him when he stole from the pigs. And that was how he spent all his childhood and his youth, till he grew up and was strong enough to go away and be a thief. The savage began to earn his living as a day labourer in Geneva. He drank what he earned, he lived like a brute, and finished by killing and robbing an old man. He was caught, tried, and condemned to death. There are not sentimentalists there. And in prison he was immediately surrounded by pastors, members of Christian brotherhoods, philanthropic ladies, and the like. They taught him to read and write in prison, and expounded the Gospel to him. They exhorted him, worked upon him, drummed at him incessantly, till at last he solemnly confessed his crime. He was converted. He wrote to the court himself that he was a monster, but that in the end God had vouchsafed him light and shown grace. All Geneva was in excitement about him- all philanthropic and religious Geneva. All the aristocratic and well-bred society of the town rushed to the prison, kissed Richard and embraced him; ‘You are our brother, you have found grace.’ and Richard does nothing but weep with emotion, ‘Yes, I’ve found grace! All my youth and childhood I was glad of pigs’ food, but now even I have found grace. I am dying in the Lord.’ ‘Yes, Richard, die in the Lord; you have shed blood and must die. Though it’s not your fault that you knew not the Lord, when you coveted the pigs’ food and were beaten for stealing it (which was very wrong of you, for stealing is forbidden); but you’ve shed blood and you must die.’ And on the last day, Richard, perfectly limp, did nothing but cry and repeat every minute: ‘This is my happiest day. I am going to the Lord.’ ‘Yes,’ cry the pastors and the judges and the philanthropic ladies. ‘This is the happiest day of your life, for you are going to the Lord!’ They all walk or drive to the scaffold in procession behind the prison van. At the scaffold they call to Richard: ‘Die, brother, die in the Lord, for even thou hast found grace!’ And so, covered with his brothers’ kisses, Richard is dragged on to the scaffold, and led to the guillotine. And they chopped off his head in brotherly fashion, because he had found grace. Yes, that’s characteristic."

- Fyodor Dostoevsky, from The Brothers Karamazov

27

October

#Dostoevsky #quote #atheism #christianity #grace #execution #philosophy #existentialism #The Brothers Karamazov #Richard