franz kiekeben
  • Home
  • Blog
  • Philosophy
  • Publications
  • Contact

ARE THERE ANY REAL ATHEISTS?

11/21/2014

0 Comments

 
The claim that genuine atheists do not exist is something we might associate with an extreme religious viewpoint – with, for example, those who point out that the Bible proves everyone is actually aware of God. A few months ago, however, a science writer by the name of Nury Vittachi argued that according to current psychological theories these religionists might very well be correct (“Scientists discover that atheists might not exist, and that’s not a joke”). The idea is that human beings are psychologically predisposed to be believers and that therefore at some level, perhaps we all are.

The mere claim that science backs up a view isn't enough to establish it, however: there must be actual scientific evidence. And yet, a brief look at Vittachi's article shows that he doesn't present any.

To begin with, what he ends up arguing is that perhaps we all have “metaphysical” or “spiritual” beliefs of some sort or other, which is different from stating that none of us are atheists. Believing in karma or in auras may be silly, but it is perfectly compatible with atheism. That difference might, incidentally, explain the obvious contradiction found in the very first sentence of Vittachi's article, which reads, "While militant atheists like Richard Dawkins may be convinced God doesn't exist, God, if he is around, may be amused to find that atheists might not exist." 


Even worse, Vittachi doesn't present good evidence that all of us believe in some metaphysical mumbo jumbo either. He doesn't even provide good evidence that a majority of those who consider themselves atheists accept such things; he merely mentions some statistics which show that quite a few non-religious people have spiritual beliefs – which isn't really news. And he appeals to, among other things, the fact that even atheists participate in funeral rituals, that we all have a “need for periods of contemplative calm,” and that works of fiction usually present good triumphing over evil. (The latter, he says, implies that one purpose of fiction is to “establish” that some kind of cosmic justice exists.) The only problem is that none of this shows that we accept a spiritual reality 
– as of course should be obvious to everyone. Does enjoying watching Bruce Willis triumph over the bad guys in Die Hard really make you a spiritual person?

Apparently, human beings do have a psychological predisposition to suppose there are gods, immaterial souls, and so on. This explains the prevalence of religion. But of course it doesn't follow from this that we are all believers. A predisposition is just that; it is not a guarantee.


0 Comments

PAT ROBERTSON AND SCIENCE

11/17/2014

0 Comments

 
In an earlier post, I mentioned Pat Robertson's criticism of young-earth creationist Ken Ham. Robertson pointed out the earth cannot be merely 6000 years old (“the dating of Bishop Ussher just doesn't comport with anything that is found in science”) and even said to his fellow Christians, “Let's be real, let's not make a joke of ourselves.”

If only he had listened to his own advice.

On his Oct. 28 program, Robertson, forgetting all about science, discussed why human lifespans were so much longer in antediluvian times. You see, prior to Noah's flood, it was common for people to live for hundreds of years; Methuselah made it to the ripe old age of 969.

So what is the explanation? According to Robertson, it might have had something to do with nice weather: “Apparently until after the flood there wasn't as much moisture in the air, there weren't as many bacteria, microbes, and things like that, and maybe the climate was such that assaults on our bodies weren't as severe.”

Ken Ham should be pleased.

0 Comments

IS GOD JUST?

11/15/2014

0 Comments

 
We nonbelievers claim that a perfectly good, loving being would never have created hell, but according to most Christians we are simply wrong. God is loving, they say, but he is also just – and justice demands that evil-doers be punished. Without hell, after all, where would the Hitlers, Stalins, and Ted Bundys of this world end up? In heaven?

This is a common argument, which means that many must find it persuasive, but my guess is that those who do simply haven't given it sufficient thought. It's very easy to see the flaws in it. To begin with, hell isn't only for serious evil-doers: standard Christian doctrine maintains that we are all deserving of eternal punishment and that anyone who doesn't accept God's offer of salvation ends up there. A second thing to keep in mind is that even the worst evil-doers aren't necessarily sent to hell – not if at some point they become sincere believers. Ted Bundy, for instance, claimed to have accepted Jesus before being executed, and if that's true then on the standard view he did end up in heaven.

One therefore cannot justify hell on the grounds that evil-doers must be punished. But more importantly, can one still maintain that God is just given this standard doctrine? Does it make sense that all of us are deserving of eternal punishment, or that those who accept Jesus are forgiven?

Let's begin with why everyone supposedly merits eternal damnation. One common reason offered for this is that God, due to his moral perfection, has standards that are so high that no one is good enough to meet them. Even if you are a saint, you aren't perfect: at the very least, you've probably told a few white lies. And that, the argument goes, makes you bad enough, in God's eyes, to merit the worst form of punishment.

But now consider an analogy. Suppose a father finds out his teenage daughter lied about when she came home from a party: she said she was back by 10 (as she was supposed to have been) even though she didn't actually make it home until 10:15. By the above logic, if this father punished her by chaining her to the basement wall for a week and giving her a hundred lashes a day with a belt, that would show that he has very high moral standards. His standards still wouldn't be as high as God's, of course, for the Lord demands far worse punishment for the girl, but they would nevertheless be much loftier than those of the majority of parents out there.

As to the second question – whether those who accept Jesus's offer of salvation deserve to be forgiven – consider that while Bundy is experiencing eternal bliss, any non-Christian who spent her entire life helping others and doing nothing but good deeds still goes to hell. All I can say is that if you think that's right, you have a very bizarre sense of justice.

The heinousness of this entire doctrine is somewhat mitigated by the (nowadays rather common) claim that hell isn't as terrible as advertised. Maybe it just means annihilation. Or perhaps it means spending eternity apart from God (which, however, is still supposed to be a very undesirable thing). But no matter what one says about it, the basic idea remains entirely unjust. Believing in Christianity – or in Islam, or any other dogma – does not make one the slightest bit more ethical than not believing, and thus cannot be a sound basis for distinguishing those who merit forgiveness from those who do not.

0 Comments

“WHAT IF YOU'RE WRONG?”

11/6/2014

2 Comments

 
It's one of the most common methods used by the religious to try to convince atheists: threaten them with hell fire! And the most common reply given by those asked the above question is to point out that the same thing applies to the one asking it: how do they know they aren't praying to the wrong God, and as a result going to hell? As Homer Simpson said about attending church, "What if we picked the wrong religion? Every week we're just making God madder and madder." This is sufficient to show that asking "what if you're wrong" doesn't make much sense.

One can even take this approach a bit further: atheists usually have better reasons for rejecting, say, Christianity than Christians have for rejecting other religions. That's because atheists have thought about these things and have concluded with good reason that religions are irrational. Christians, on the other hand, cannot say such a thing about other religions, at least not without compromising their own views. (I once read a Christian criticism of Islam which stated that, if there is so much as one contradiction in the Koran, then the Muslim religion is wrong. That's true... But what a thing for a believer in the Bible to claim!) If anything, then, it is the religious who should be more concerned about the possibility of being wrong.

There is, however, a better reply to the “what if you're wrong” question. The person who asks it is implying that the God they believe in will punish nonbelievers one way or another. After all, “what if you're wrong” has no force unless the consequences of being wrong are bad – really bad. Moreover, whether or not someone suffers this punishment is based on nothing more than whether or not they have the correct belief. But a good, morally just God would never have created such an unfair and immoral system. The question “what if you're wrong,” then, gives us a great opportunity to turn the tables around: it makes a good case, not for belief, but for nonbelief. Anyone who thinks it is reasonable to ask such a question cannot consistently claim to believe in a good God.


2 Comments

    Archives

    April 2022
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014

    Categories

    All
    Atheism
    Creationism
    Determinism And Free Will
    Ethics
    Infinity
    Politics And Religion
    Presuppositionalism

    RSS Feed

Link to my author's page on Amazon