The Sun of God

Do you believe in the sun? Do you think that the sun exists?

I certainly do. I've never doubted the sun's existence, even when it was out of sight. And I don't think anyone else has either. Certainly, I've never heard of anyone who claimed that the sun doesn't exist. Even solipsists, I'd be willing to bet, would admit that they perceive the sun, even if they deny that their perceptions are indicative of reality.

People even agree on details about the sun, even when those details change, and vary from place to place. Someone in China will say the sun is up at the same time someone in America will say the sun is down, but both will agree that the other is correct for their location.

Why are people in such unanimous agreement about the sun? Is a supernatural entity using telepathy to mind-control us? No, the reason we agree about it, is because we can see it. The evidence for its existence is right there, clear as day.

Some people say that the evidence for god is clear and obvious, but it's clearly not as obvious as the evidence for the sun. If it were, there wouldn't be such disparate religions. Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists... People can't even agree on whether god exists, let alone specific details about him.

Some people say that god wants us to believe in him. But surely an omnipotent would be capable of performing a feat that an inanimate object has managed. If god wants us to believe in him, he must not want it very much.

Jesus

On this day of Easter, let us not forget this important fact: Jesus did not exist.

Now, don't get me wrong. It's entirely possible, perhaps even probable, that there was a guy named Yeshua who came from Nazareth and preached in Jerusalem and was crucified for his beliefs.

But that's not the person that Christians are talking about when they talk about Jesus. They're talking about the son of God, born of a virgin, who performed miracles and rose from the dead. That Jesus never existed. And that Jesus is not the same person as Yeshua. If he is, then Santa Claus lived in Turkey in 300 AD.

And we know next to nothing about the "real" Jesus. The only writings we have that talk about Jesus and were written anywhere close to when he actually lived were written by Christians, and were talking about the miraculous version.

EDIT:
And it's entirely possible the "real" Jesus didn't exist either.

How Can You Be Moral Without God?

Some theists claim that god is needed for morality. They ask, "How can you be moral without God?"

They might as well ask "How can you be moral with God?" Or better yet, "How can you be moral?", or "What is morality?"

I don't claim to have the answers to those questions. Philosophers have been debating that for thousands of years, and have come up with many contradictory answers, so most of them have to have been wrong.

But bringing god into the question doesn't make it any better. If you say that god's commands are good, you run into the Euthyphro dilemma. Does god command what is good because it is good, or is what is good good, because god commands it?

If the answer is the former, then we're back where we started. If god doesn't determine what's good, then what does?

The alternative has some implications that don't agree with what most people would consider morality. For example, god could change what is moral on a whim, and it wouldn't be wrong. After all, if god determines morality, and it said "It's moral for me to change the laws of morality", well, it couldn't be wrong, now could it?

And consider this analogy (adapted from this). Suppose aliens came to Earth, with overwhelming technological powers. It's impossible for us to fight them, they just vaporize our weapons as soon as we try to use them. And they impose on us some rules that seem quite arbitrary. For example, no one is allowed to wear blue shirts on Tuesday. They reward people who follow their rules, and punish people who don't. Further suppose, that after some time, they eventually leave. Which do you think would be the more common reaction to their departure? "But who will stop us from wearing blue shirts on Tuesdays?" or "Thank god those terrible aliens are gone!"

If what is good is determined solely by god, then his commands would appear to us to be arbitrary. We wouldn't consider a command against murder any more important than a command against blue shirts, and we wouldn't be worried that god is needed to give such a command.

The Problem with Unitarian Universalism

Unitarian Universalism is about the least objectionable religion imaginable. They don't go door to door trying to convert people. They don't try to prevent gays from marrying. They don't try to get creationism taught in schools. They don't say that if you don't believe as they do then you'll burn in hell.

But there's one major problem with UU that I find objectionable. They're too open and accepting.

The thing is, the existence of god and other religious questions are objective facts. Either god exists, or god doesn't exist. God can't exist for you, and not exist for me. If one person believes in god, and another doesn't then one of them is wrong and ought to change their mind, because truth is important.

Now, I don't think that someone with wrong beliefs should be censored or converted at swordpoint or anything like that. The only way to separate the true beliefs from the false is to constantly examine and challenge all beliefs.

But if a congregation is truly interested in getting at the truth, they shouldn't be content with "Well, some of us believe in god X and some of us believe in god Y and some of us don't believe in god at all.". They should instead examine the evidence and try to determine which, if any, beliefs are true and believe in those. Eventually, as they share information and arguments, they should start to agree on major points.

UUists tend to like the parable of the blind men and the elephant. They use it as an example of how different people can experience the same reality differently. But the parable shouldn't end with one man feeling a rope, and one man feeling a wall and one man feeling a pillar. Rather the blind men should examine the elephant further, switch places and find parts they hadn't before, and hopefully find a unified elephant.

There is Evidence for God

Something many atheists claim is that there is no evidence for god or religion. Not one single bit of evidence at all. But that's not true. It's frequently talked about as if it were an all or nothing kind of thing. As if all the evidence points one way or the other. But, it's possible for there to be evidence for something that's false.

There is evidence for god. It's weak evidence, and clearly overwhelmed by the evidence against, but it's still there. It's not nothing.

The biggest piece of evidence I can think of is that the vast majority of people believe in god. And this is not argumentum ad populum, but rather a probabilistic, Bayesian point of view. Which is more likely? The probability that so many people would believe in god given that god exists, or the probability that so many people would believe in god given that god doesn't exist? I think people are more likely to believe in something true rather than something false, especially if it interacts with them personally. Of course, people are willing to believe all sorts of crazy shit, so it's not much more likely. Which is why it's very weak evidence.

The Problem of Evil

A lot of Christians claim that God is all-powerful, all-knowing and perfectly good. And yet, earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis, tornadoes, floods, fires and all sorts of other natural disasters happen everyday which destroy infrastructure and kill people.

I'll let a Greek philosopher (probably not actually Epicurus, though usually attributed to him) make the connection.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

One of the most common solutions to the problem of evil is to say God has "mysterious ways" and these acts serve some greater purpose. But God is supposed to be omnipotent. Not just really, really powerful - all-powerful. If he were all-powerful, he could achieve the same purposes without the killing and destruction.

Some people say that God can't be morally judged the same as humans, but I don't see why not. Whether something is moral or not isn't determined by the actor's power or knowledge. (Note to self: write a post going into more detail about this.)

One of the most... interesting... solutions to this problem that I've seen is that natural disasters are caused by human evil and sinfulness and for God to prevent them would interfere with our freewill. Of course, there was no explanation of how humans cause natural disasters, or how God would be interfering with freewill by eliminating them.

And then of course, there is the solution that there is no such entity that is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. Personally, I find that to be the most parsimonious solution.

Why Do Atheists Talk About God?

If atheists don't believe in any god, why do they spend so much time talking about it? This is something that comes up when engaging in such theist-atheist discussions. It's usually used as a cheap attempt to discredit an atheist's points, or prove that atheists don't really disbelieve in god. Of course, such attempts are ridiculous, and, well, stupid.

But it's not an unreasonable question. Why would you spend so much time talking about something that you don't think exists? I can't speak for anyone else, but here are my reasons.

1. It's interesting. Just because something doesn't exist doesn't mean it's not interesting to think about. I also like talking about elves and alternate histories. 
2. I want to know the truth. If a god does exist, I want to know about that, and I won't find out by sticking my fingers in my ears.
3. Finally, and most importantly, because people use their belief in god to support teaching creationism, banning abortion, bashing gays, mandatory public school prayers, and many other flagrant infringements on rights.

The Bat-God

Do Jews, Christians and Muslims worship the same god? Is the God of the Torah the same as the God of the Bible the same as the God of the Koran?

Here's my (atheistic) take on it: God is like Batman. I don't mean that he's a superhero who fights crime under the cover of darkness (though that would be pretty cool). What I mean is that the different versions of Batman are like the different versions of God. There's the Batman of the comics, the Batman of the early Batman movies and the Batman of the rebooted Christian Bale Batman movies.

In each version, certain important characteristics stay the same. Batman is always dresses up as a bat to fight crime, has a batmobile and a batcave, etc. God is always the omnipotent creator of the universe, who personally cares about humans.

But also, important characteristics change. Who killed Batman's parents and where did he learn to be an expert in hand-to-hand combat? Who was God's most recent prophet and does he care if we eat pork?

So, is God the same God? Well, in the most important aspects, yeah, pretty much. But, that doesn't mean they're interchangeable regardless of context. You can't talk about why Michael Keaton's Batman never mentions Ra's al Ghul because it's not the same continuity. Similarly, you can't ask why the Christian God allows pork when the Jewish God prohibits it.

Of course, this is approaching God as a purely fictional literary character. A real entity can't be three different versions at once. Wait a minute...

(As a sidenote, I find it somewhat interesting that Aphrodite is another god(dess) who rather different versions of herself.)

Blasphemy

Blasphemy must be allowed. Though, not always appropriate, it must always be considered acceptable.

Why?

Because everything is blasphemy. Every Christian church blasphemes against Islam and Hinduism and every non-Christian religion (and maybe even some different forms of Christianity too!) every single week. Every religion blasphemes against every other religion, and just about every statement of opinion is blasphemy to someone. Hell, even demonstrable facts can be blasphemous (consider evolution).

Something cannot be considered wrong simply because it it blasphemous, because otherwise, everything would be wrong.

Belief in God and Attitude towards God.

I don't think god exists, and I'm glad that god doesn't exist. I think living in a universe without god is better than living in a universe with god (all else being equal).

Most theists are glad that god does exist. They'd prefer the universe with god to the one without him.

It seems like there are very few people who believe one way, but think the other would be better.

So, is this correlation, or causation, and if it's causation, does the belief cause the attitude, or does the attitude cause the belief? I'd speculate that it's some of all three.

Both elements are probably largely influenced by the same outside sources. For example, most of what people believe about god and religion comes from their parents. So, both the belief about god and the attitude toward god will be picked up.

Humans are terribly prone to magical thinking, so the attitude definitely helps foster the belief. If you think something is good, you're more likely to believe that it's true too and the opposite.

And humans also prefer what they have to what they could have. If you've already concluded one way or the other, since there's no way to change it, you'll convince yourself that whatever you have is best. The theists will be more likely to ignore that bad things about god, and the atheists will be more likely to ignore the good things.

It's interesting, and I think it serves to both highlight our cognitive biases and demonstrate just how little actual evidence there is either way. People believe things they don't want to all the time when there's good solid evidence for it. I don't like high murder and rape rates, but I believe them.

Pascal's Wager

Pascal's wager is an argument to believe in god. It goes like this: If god exists, and you believe, you'll go to heaven for eternity. If god exists, and you don't believe, you'll go to hell for eternity. If god doesn't exist, you'll neither gain nor lose anything by believing or not believing. Because the reward/punishment of heaven/hell is infinite, no matter how unlikely god's existence is, the cost/benefit analysis says that you should believe.

The first problem is: what if you pick the wrong god? Worship Zeus and Odin could damn you. Oops. Still, you might think it's better to choose some god, rather than none. Picking the wrong god gets the same punishment as picking no god, but picking a god gives some chance of getting the infinite reward.

But it goes further than that. There's no reason to think that any god would give you infinite reward for believing in it and infinite punishment for not believing in it. It's possible, sure. But it's just as possible for a god to punish anyone who believes in it, and reward anyone who doesn't believe in it. Or, the god could reward only those who truly believe, and not just play some silly game. Or, god could capriciously reward and punish people regardless of what they did in life. Or, some other scenario I haven't thought of.

Also, there is a cost to believing that's not incumbent on the non-believer; following the tenets of the religion you've chosen.

With all those different possibilities, there's no reason to think trying to believe in god is better than not trying to believe.

Absence of Evidence is Evidence of Absence.

The common saying "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is not true.

If you should be seeing evidence of a phenomenon and you aren't, then that is evidence that the phenomenon doesn't exist. Consider the Michelson-Morley Experiment. It was designed to measure the speed of the Earth through the luminiferous aether. And it found... absolutely nothing. That, and other experiments which failed to detect the aether, overthrew the theory. The absence of evidence was the evidence of absence.

Even in cases where you wouldn't expect to see evidence, the absence of it is still weak evidence of absence. I say this based on Bayesian reasoning. If a phenomenon exists, but you wouldn't expect to see evidence of it given the circumstances, presumably, there's still a non-zero (though small) probability of seeing evidence of it. Whereas, if the phenomenon doesn't exist there is even less probability of seeing evidence for the phenomenon. This means that not seeing the phenomenon does shift the probability of the phenomenon actually existing down, by however small an amount. Of course, depending on the specifics, it could be a very, very weak evidence.

Usually, this sentiment comes up in reference to the existence of god. Just because we don't see evidence of god doesn't mean he doesn't exist. But it does make it less likely. The question then is, how much less likely? If god did exist, what would we expect to see different than if he didn't exist?

Atheism and Agnosticism

I consider myself to be both an atheist and an agnostic. Most people would consider that to be a contradiction - that atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive. They're going by definitions that are something like "Atheism is being sure there is no god" and "Agnosticism is not knowing whether or not there is a god." I don't like those definitions. I don't think they're useful, for two main reasons.

1. From a practical standpoint, they're the same. Neither the atheist nor the agnostic pray or go to church, or do anything religious like that. In terms of how they live their lives, there's no significant difference between the two. But internal belief can be just as important as external behavior, which leads to point 2.
2. It excludes a middle ground. Under this scheme, it seems there are two options of non-belief. Atheists think there is absolutely no possibility that god exists, and agnostics think it's fifty-fifty between there being a god, and there not being a god. Some people are somewhat more inclusive and consider any uncertainty to be agnosticism, so if you think there's a 10% chance of god existing, or a 1% chance, or a 0.0000001% chance, you're an agnostic. But then, virtually no one is actually an atheist, and it's a pointless distinction.

So, here are the definitions I prefer. Atheism is not believing in god, not necessarily being sure he doesn't exist, just probably. Agnosticism is believing that it is not possible to know for sure either way. Atheism is about ontology - what exists. Agnosticism is about epistemology - what we can know.

My reason for being an atheist is simple: I don't see any evidence for god, and the logical default is to conclude non-existence, unless there's reason not to.

My reason for being an agnostic is somewhat more complicated. First off, I'm talking about gods that are supposed to be omnipotent. Most everyone will agree that an omnipotent god can't be disproven. It's possible that he could just be hiding. Using his unlimited power to evade any attempt at detection. I also contend that it is impossible to prove that god does exist. Suppose god did reveal himself, and to prove it, switched the positions of Earth and Jupiter, but preventing any adverse effects on the Earth. Astronomers could verify that in fact the Earth and Jupiter had been switched. But this could merely be the work of some super-powerful alien. Not enough to prove god's omnipotence. So, god moves the whole solar system to another place in the galaxy, an even more powerful feat. But that again doesn't prove that he's all-powerful. So, he moves the galaxy, or a hundred galaxies or a billion galaxies. No matter how powerful a miracle was performed, there is always another one just a little bit more so. Now, all this would of course prove that there is some super-powerful entity, who from our perspective, is effectively omnipotent, but there's no way to show actual omnipotence, and if it's not omnipotent, it's not god.