Why The Christian God Cannot Be Proven Without The Bible

A thought experiment: Image you’ve never read or heard of the Bible and don’t know anything about religion(s). Now think about yourself and the world around you. Also think about the breadth of the entire universe while you’re at it. Is there anything about your body, the planet Earth, and the universe at large that SPECIFICALLY points to a single omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being that created the universe who also exists outside of the universe? Moreover, is there anything about your body, the planet Earth, and the universe at large that SPECIFICALLY points to the plans or desires of this entity? 

No.

The greatest problem facing the validity of the creator-god myth is something that doesn’t get brought up enough, if at all. 100% of the time, knowledge of a such a god precedes the alleged evidence found in nature for such a deity’s existence. No one ever in their right mind* with no knowledge of religion has ever looked around themselves and at nature and said, “This is all so incredible, a single entity of some sort must’ve created everything.” No one would say this having any knowledge of how complex things are created and built. While some complex objects can be built by a single designer and engineer, we know that this is no small feat and requires lots of time; typically more than six 24-hour days. There is also every indication that the more complex something is to design and build, the more people are required to complete that task. The Empire State Building in New York City had four architects and required hundreds of people to build it. No one, not even a person who knows next to nothing about erecting buildings would say of the Empire State Building that it looks like something a single person designed and built.

[*By ‘in their right mind,’ we should say ‘in possession of analytic skills’ as primitive men obviously possessed little in the way of reason. Modern man still doesn’t.]

Every single time, knowledge about a religion exists prior to viewing one’s self, the Earth, and the universe through that lens to conclude what one sees aligns with and affirms their beliefs. Here, we should ask why, then, are scriptures the only thing that establishes the existence of a creator-god? Why isn’t the existence of any such deity (and their plans) obvious from our existence and the world around us. A person left to their own devices, growing up alone and never coming into contact with another person would not come to the conclusion of the biblical god, for example. There is absolutely nothing about our bodies, our minds, the world outside of us, or the universe beyond Earth that specifically states that we should obey the 10 Commandments or accept Jesus as our Savior, for instance. No one is born with that specific knowledge. While Christians are fond of saying everyone is born a sinner (thanks to Original Sin), at the same time atheists are fond of saying everyone is born an atheist, the only difference being is that the atheist can’t be disputed and that’s no small thing.

It might be objected that, well, a book is just the way a monotheistic god goes about teaching people about his existence and the need to be saved. I can’t help but think, though, that imprinting his existence and desires directly into our minds without the need for other people’s input would be a much better idea, especially considering you risk eternal damnation for not believing in him. Considering that, God does not seem too wise to me when I can think of a better way of doing things, and particularly in the creation of humans. In creating a person, I would also re-design the knee, which is a poorly ‘designed’ joint. I would dispense with much of the universe as well, seeing how humans will never traverse most of that space. So why would I worship a deity I can outsmart on matters of design? Why would I worship a deity whose own book is the only way to ‘truly’ know them be so obtuse as to lead to numerous sects of Christianity that all profess to be the One True Religion? If this deity did exist, I wouldn’t have much respect for their intellect.

So the challenge to apologists stands: Is there anything about your body, the planet Earth, and the universe at large that SPECIFICALLY points to a single omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being that created the universe who also exists outside of the universe? Moreover, is there anything about your body, the planet Earth, and the universe at large that SPECIFICALLY points to the plans or desires of this entity?

I already know (because I’m omniscient) that at least one Apologist will chime in with DNA as their proof. Only, the complex structure of DNA does not speak to a single creator as I’ve already pointed out, nor does the complexity of DNA tell us anything about the plans or desires of any deity beyond the proclivity to reproduce.

I’ll be waiting a long time for a good answer because all apologists are already tainted by and biased towards their belief, unable to be objective. Meanwhile, I am willing to be objective because I am rational, open to the possibility a creator-god exists given the appropriate proofs, those proofs being arguments or evidence of that single creator as described in the monotheistic traditions that do not fail, that cannot be objected to.

Come, Watson, come. The Game is afoot.

5 Irrefutable Proofs that God Does NOT Exist

As Christian (and other theistic) apologists enjoy giving ‘irrefutable’ proofs for God’s existence, I thought I offer up Proof of a Negative – in this case, that God (or any god) does not exist. Of course, I needn’t do this as anyone asserting a positive statement, such that X does exists, has the burden of proof upon them. Moreover, it is quite possible to prove a negative, contrary to popular belief. (Lookup the Law of Non-Contradiction for starters.) So let’s just get right to it:

 

1)     1-There is no universally accepted definition of ‘God’ – What are God’s attributes; how do we know God is God? Ask 100 theists for their definition of God and you’re likely to get about 100 different answers once you get past the Big Three. There will be some similarity in answers, such that God is anthropomorphic, is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, those last three attribute that when taken collectively cannot possibly be true due to contradictions. (For instance, if God knows the future, the future is preordained, which means God has no free will, which means God is not all powerful.) To know God is God there must be a definition that is testable. We can’t simply resort to “God is these things by definition” if such a definition cannot be observed. Even in the world of mathematics, one is one is not true by definition; we have to observe that is the case to know it is true.

2)    2- God is not testable – Not only is the definition of God not testable, in NO WAY can we sense God on a practical level. We cannot see, touch, taste, smell or hear God forthwith. Seeing or hearing God – when other people cannot – is tantamount to a hallucination. Likewise are mental states or emotional ‘feelings’ that God is present or exists. We know by studying brain scans these states or feeling are dependent on biological changes within the brain and body and do not correlate to any information we retrieve through our five senses. ‘Knowledge’ not derived from our five senses is not actual knowledge. Direct experience is the only way to actually know anything about the world, assuming our senses are not faulty.

3)    3- God cannot be told apart from a sufficiently powerful or knowledgeable alien – Let’s suppose some being came to Earth tomorrow and are from the planet Flobblebot, though they neglected to tell us where they are from. They know everything there is to know about the universe to the point of predicting exactly what will happen next and can perform any seemingly magical trick we ask of them, like teleporting us to the surface of the Sun and back without harm. Furthermore, this creature says they are the god of the Bible. Should we then conclude that this being is in fact God? That may seem reasonable but they really aren’t God since they’re from within the universe and not from outside of it as apologists often postulate. So we can’t know any ‘God’ isn’t lying to us, that they aren’t an alien. Any God could in fact be an alien who happens to have advanced power and knowledge.

4)    4- The existence of evil – Surely a definition of evil would be helpful here, unless we can agree ahead of time that something like the murder of a newborn child is evil. Let’s assume we do agree on that. If God is all-knowing, God knew it was going to happen and in not preventing it, is ultimately responsible for the evil since God is the creator of all things. If God could have chosen to stop this event and did not, God is not all-good. If God had a good reason not to stop the event – perhaps the child faced an unpleasant life if allowed to live – we should conclude God is not powerful enough to have stopped the pregnancy in the first place. We also can’t assume God’s actual reasons for doing anything as God’s mind is unknowable as I’ve so often heard from theists. (And, if it were indeed the case that God had a good reason for allowing the murder, this gives us a reason for allowing abortion.) If an all-powerful God wanted to stop a life of suffering, an all-powerful God could do so at any time but curiously never does – because God does not exist. If an existent God has a good reason for allowing suffering – maybe it creates mental and emotional resiliency – this should be stated in scriptures and continue in the afterlife. Never stop growing, right? (If the whole point of heaven is to live eternally without suffering, then it is reasonable to assume suffering is bad. Doesn’t seem like there is in fact a good reason for it.)

5)     5-Theists are often frightened by the prospect of death – If heaven exists why are theists ever afraid? If they are not sure if they are going to get into heaven, that indicates they are not compelled by the particulars of their faith to follow all the tenants of their faith and secure their heavenly reward: eternal life. A ‘true believer’ wouldn’t be scared by the prospect of the unknown – since they know about heaven – or leaving their family and friends behind knowing they are all going to meet again in the afterlife. A theist cannot be scared by dying as obtaining heaven is the entire point of believing in God. But theists are scared all the time. They have fears about death, they doubt, because subliminally at least they know they have accepted a falsehood. If heaven exists, a theist should not be scared by death or any earthly punishments. But they are scared. Ergo, God does not exist.

 

I hope you’ve enjoyed these ‘irrefutable’ proofs, some of which is a little bit tongue-in-cheek on purpose. Surely you’ve spotted an error or two on the level of “The Bible says God exists so God exists.” Have fun picking apart and kindly share your thoughts. Even after doing that it is still the case that no gods exist. Can you prove otherwise?

Christians Against Dinosaurs

 A few months ago, I scanned a headline about a group seeking the removal of a dinosaur statue outside a McDonalds in Tucson, AZ. Having lived in Tucson and familiar with the landmark, I was intrigued to the point of actually reading the article.

The group is called ‘Christians Against Dinosaurs’ (aka CAD) which maintains a Facebook page with a dead link to christiansagainstdinosaurs.com (I guess the CAD admins don’t make enough money or haven’t heard about free web hosting). Per the Facebook page, the philosophy – such as it is – maintains: There is no evidence dinosaurs ever existed, that dinosaurs ever existed is based on assumptions, Jurassic Park is not a documentary (I wasn’t aware anyone thought that), dinosaurs in musea(?) are made of plaster, carbon dating is not reliable, and that chickens are not modern dinosaurs. The group admins repeatedly assert they have done the scientific research and have concluded – with no help from their faith – that dinosaurs never existed. Furthermore, to believe in dinosaurs is dangerous because, well, it’s false and naturally leads people away from the Christian god.

 

Of course, I couldn’t help but be tempted to join the group and weigh in on their discussions. I also knew it would be fruitless to change anyone’s mind, so why would I bother? Because insanity doesn’t get a free pass, ever, even when you can’t cure the ill. I’m glad I did join, though, because what I discovered is a potentially dangerous group of people.

 

Let’s begin with their denial of the evidence, of which there is a lot. What I mean is that we’ve recovered fossilized bones (NOT the bones themselves, which CAD members don’t seem to understand) of many exceptionally sized animals that would be classified as lizards. (Lizards being their classification based on anatomy and physiology, and in this case, supposedly their behavior; based on modern lizards). We’ve recovered LOTS of fossils of these lizards and as the evidence mounted, yes, assumptions were made that these fossilized bones belonged to (often large) lizards that we do not see anymore. Because what else could they be?

 

Ah, the ‘fossilized’ bones are either all fakes and/or were put in place by Satan to deceive all of us about there ever being dinosaurs, because the more time you spend obsessing about dinosaurs the less time you spend with God. (The devil couldn’t come up with a better plan than that? That’s disappointing.)

Certainly, nevermind that most adults spend more time at church than on dinosaurs even if they did go through a dinosaur phase as a child. I mean, no one is missing church to go catch the latest Jurassic Park movie. Sheesh. So we can dismiss the Satan Theory as being childish nonsense but to claim all the recoveries are fake? That would be a massive undertaking and human beings aren’t exactly known for keeping their mouths shut the larger a conspiracy becomes. BUT, the fakes are driven by money, prestige and power, leading us to the perpetrators of the conspiracy – Big Paleo. Ooo, scary.

 

I think CAD’s claim about Big Paleo being in it for the money is so ludicrous that it highlights the lack of research group members must avoid. Their assertion is that the field of paleontology makes so much money, that is what drives the industry to lie about what they’ve discovered and what they do. Now, I couldn’t find any estimates on how much money the field of paleontology makes annually, but literally no one thinks of paleontologists first when asked to make a short list of opportunistic careers. (Click here for a list of the most influential – not richest – paleontologists https://paleontologyworld.com/paleontologists-curiosities/12-most-influential-paleontologists ). By comparison, the faith industry in the U.S. alone makes approximately a trillion dollars a year. So, if money is the motivating factor for paleontologists, why aren’t they pastor instead? They’re in the wrong industry! And I won’t even mention the fact that you need at least a Masters degree to make any money in paleontology whereas you don’t need any education to lead a flock astray. So why go through the trouble? By the way, can you can name at least one mega-rich pastor off the top of your head? Who can’t! The lie about Big Paleo is an attempt to cash-in on the hysteria of phrases like Big Pharma and Big Oil which are seen as inherently evil, which in this case is an outright lie. (I know what you’re thinking, why would a Christian lie about something? Perhaps being Christian, they’re already immune to facts. I’m not sure. Actually I do know why but that’s not important right now.)

 

Could it be that Big Paleo is driven by prestige and power? That is possibly more likely since we know spiritual leaders are likely motivated by the same factors; it’s just a human thing to do, pretend you hold special knowledge. So that’s a possible explanation for the ‘lie’ but since that motivation applies to so many people in so many fields, the point is perhaps moot. Except when it comes to fossilized bones there is no special knowledge: We have a bunch of bones that when we compare them can be classified in a certain way and leads us to certain conclusions. As I mentioned the conclusion may be somewhat inexact, but the overall conclusion that really large lizards once roamed the earth is inescapable. (Or at least that’s what Satan wants us to think. I keep mentioning to CAD members that the evidence is there but they just don’t want to hear it; it would be too much mental work for them to draw any conclusions from it.)

 

I also point out that even if we take it as a matter of faith that dinosaurs existed, this is no different than any of them believing in God on faith. Naturally, they always counter this by saying matters of faith are not subject to scientific inquiry as if they’re being clever in avoiding the ‘evidence trap.’ So CAD gets upset that paleontologists tell everyone that dinosaurs existed based on the evidence. What they don’t realize is that, epistemologically speaking, ultimately every belief is a matter of faith, which circles back to my point about just believing in dinosaurs on faith as a non-starter. In other words, they shouldn’t be getting upset if, really, believing dinosaurs existed is a matter of faith since evidence isn’t required for beliefs. CAD doesn’t realize any analysis of their argument in dividing the beliefs undermines that argument. (I’d like to add here that there is evidence for every belief we have, though that evidence may be falsified or be a false claim. No one is born with a belief in God, though it seems human beings are born with an innate ability to believe in the nonsensical or the flimsiest of ‘evidence,’ like a book written by superstitious tribal men.)

 

But aren’t all the dinosaur bones in museums fakes, made of plaster? Many are because fossilized bones which really aren’t ‘bones’ in the way we understand them are very fragile. (This link speaks to the definition and fragility of fossils https://www.amnh.org/dinosaurs/dinosaur-bones#:~:text=The%20%22dinosaur%20bones%22%20that%20you,bones%20are%20turned%20into%20rock. ) Yet many real fossils do appear in museums around the world. Sure, some are plaster replicas made from molds or are guesswork where skeletons have been recovered incomplete, but even forensic scientists do the latter with human bodies. (So I guess we should consider human skeletons that aren’t recovered fully intact fake? I know, that’s a stretch, but it was fun to write.)

 

At this point I’m going to move on to their disdain for (radio)carbon dating which everyone knows can only date organic material back 50,000 years or so. Paleontologists use a different kind of radiometric dating to determine the age of the rock and sediment fossilized bones are found in and that helps estimate the age of a recovery. The most rudimentary research can point this out, so for a group that claims to be scientifically minded they goofed one of their primary talking points. Good grief, CAD’s not doing so well so far.

 

Hold on! You mean chickens aren’t modern dinosaurs? Let’s file this under ‘N’ for No Shit, Sherlock. Chickens aren’t even lizards. Alas, the evidence seems to indicate birds have descended from dinosaurs, because evolution. I won’t get into evolution here because many of its detractors either can’t grasp the basic concepts involved or refuse to believe it on religious grounds. Anyone who says chickens are modern dinosaurs means they are descendants, not that they’re actually dinosaurs. But leave it to CAD not to understand this.

 

Behind all their misleading and outright false drivel is something inevitably more sinister, however. Checking in on them this evening (you gotta keep an eye on these people) sees one CAD member going on a rant because he came across a dinosaur’s face plastered on a case of beer. That’s being a little triggered, wouldn’t you say? CAD members often post such pictures with such pithy captions as, “This is not okay!” or “Dinosaurs never existed!” Similarly, for every new report of a recovery, a CAD member will inevitably remark, “Jesus is really testing us,” making it clear that at least some members really do think dinosaur bones were put in place by Satan.

 

CAD’s desire to see dinosaurs erased from all aspects of culture indicate the worst tendencies of humanity. Among them, the inability to understand science, the declaration of special knowledge, and to be clearly divorced from reality while insisting their religious beliefs have nothing to do with their denial of the evidence. And the group is clearly religiously motivated, which can never be not troubling. Then there’s the fact that they are a group, having consciously sought each other out for the purposes of locking themselves into an echo chamber. Sure, you can try to reason with them, but the echo is too loud and we know by now that reason is not enough to make people abandon false beliefs.

 

Unsurprisingly, member as the group will go out of their way to lie and create memes such as the David Attenborough one here, giving a quote the man never said. Perhaps they missed the commandment (not optional) against bearing false witness? Called out on their lies, they never acknowledge it. Like so many people, their truth is the only truth that matters. Fortunately, science – and courtrooms to a lesser degree – don’t give a fuck about what you think is reality. This raises a question: Should people be allowed to believe their own ‘facts’? Both the far-right and far-left think so, and this is what has made such a cultural and political mess of the United States.

 

What is to be done with CAD, then, leave them to their own device? Ignoring them is more dangerous than fruitlessly trying to reason with them because if we can prevent even one more indoctrination, it’s worth it. Plus, it makes ourselves feel better to insult intentionally stupid people, does it not? It seems to work for them. Interesting that they don’t like it when the shoe’s on the other foot.

All Rights Reserved (C) Theory Parker Dec. 2020

Thoughts on Being Vegetarian

Vegetarianism has been on the rise for some time now, finally taking root in my own household. I am participating, so to speak, but it’s not that I find arguments for this eating lifestyle particularly compelling; I don’t. No, I participate mostly for the sake of supporting those who are enamored by the idea and because I don’t want to make my own dinner all the time. But why aren’t I completely compelled by the arguments for vegetarianism alone? Let’s examine the typical vegetarian’s arguments for abandoning meat in their diet.

To begin with, it’s fair to say that your garden-variety vegetarian finds the idea of farming animals for food repugnant. I can certainly understand this as I am generally against cruelty to any animal that isn’t human. Packing animals in close corners, feeding them something we wouldn’t eat ourselves, pumping them full of hormones, snatching calves from their mothers, wood-chipping chicks if they’re the wrong sex; well, it’s enough to leave a bad taste in any humane person’s mouth. While those of us who occasionally fall off the vegetarian food wagon hope against hope our chicken piccata roamed around happily clueless before being snatched from its bliss like a child in Indonesia, we really know better, and to know better – to know what’s really going on and be okay with it – kinda makes a person an asshole. And we’ve got enough assholes, truth be told.

Fortunately, I don’t find meat all that tasty, or at least not so tasty I couldn’t live without it. After my own father died of a massive heart attack given his meat-saturated diet (though there was the smoking and some drinking, too), I’ve never thought of meat as something I just had to have. And knowing an animal suffered for my culinary enjoyment kind of makes me nauseous when I think about it. Others disagree and their argument is often something like, “Then they (animals) shouldn’t be so damn tasty.” Yes, but if we suddenly discovered how tasty people were, would that suddenly make it okay to eat them? Sometimes this leads to the follow-up argument that God gave human beings dominion over animals (which somehow got translated into “Be shitty to animals”) so it’s all good; the Boss said so. I’m not convinced. It seems like people treat animals the way they’d like to treat other human beings ‘cept that those pesky societal norms stave off their more primitive desires. I’d say thank goodness if treating each other with some dignity weren’t becoming abnormal.

But I digress; I offer my own counter argument to vegetarians here: That eating a plant is equally or even potentially worse than eating an animal. Vegetarians seem content to take life so long as it does not possess a nervous system like most animals do. The reasoning is that if some lifeform is sufficiently close enough to being human, it is cruel to kill and eat that thing. But this is a completely arbitrary distinction. If you’ll notice, many vegetarians are content to include fish in their diet, citing that fish are sufficiently unlike human beings to warrant eating them. Having seen many a fish hooked and pulled out of the water, I’m reasonably sure they feel as much pain as any land animal. So the argument becomes, “I think X is like me (or worse, X is cute), therefore I will not eat it. Y however…” There is no solid delineation for what is sufficiently like a human being to warrant sparing its life and not eating that thing. Who gets to be the authority on such a matter? Arbitrary reasoning is not objective, so the ‘moral’ choice a person makes to become a vegetarian and how far they take it is based solely on subjective reasoning.

It is likewise subjective to assume that plants do not feel pain or suffer from what we do to them. We know that all lifeforms react to the environment around them and what we can pain are sensations the nervous system sends to our brain to tell us harm is taking place. It is therefore reasonable to assume that tearing or uprooting a plant adversely affects a plant and that they don’t somehow sense this. Granted, plants do not have a nervous system like mammals and other animals do, but certainly plants possess a mechanism to react to harm in much the same way they obviously react to positive conditions like sunlight. For all we know, uprooting a plant may make it feel something entirely worse than pain. We don’t know. In not knowing, we should err on the side of caution, not continue on our merry way and say, “Whoops, sorry, we were wrong about you” if we find out plants do feel pain. Then again, that is the tract the United States took in regards to its era of slavery so I guess there is precedent for behaving/eating the way we do.

Ideally then, we really shouldn’t eat anything that may potentially feel pain in our efforts to eat it, if we’re on a quest to claim some moral high ground. Fruits and nuts appear okay to eat then seeing how they are the attempt of plants to procreate and not ‘alive’ in and of themselves or cannot grow unless they’re given the proper circumstances or conditions. In the end, the so-called moral argument given by vegetarians is utterly lost on me; it rings as hollow as a gourd.

This aside, I do believe there are some good arguments to be made in favor of a vegetarian diet. First and foremost is the environmental argument. While a majority of human beings seem to care very little about how poisonous they make their own immediate environment…well, that’s just it. Look, the Romans didn’t know they were poisoning themselves with lead and this was a contributing factor to the fall of their empire. We don’t have that excuse anymore. We know what we’re doing to the environment and the vast majority of us still don’t care. We don’t care that the environment sometimes – maybe often – contributes to cancer yet people ‘race for a cure’ instead of doing the obvious, cleaning up a toxic environment. (I might also mention that people who constantly consume meat have higher rates of cancer than vegetarians.) I know full well that cancer is a horrible, devastating disease but there are steps we can take to minimize our risk to succumbing to it, and taking care of the environment should be chief among those steps. And this is to say nothing of the methane – a particularly nasty greenhouse gas – that is released into the atmosphere due to cattle farming. Shoot, sorry; I forgot rising temperatures aren’t mankind’s fault. (You know mankind can’t take the blame for anything it does to itself.)

As alluded to a few moments ago, there is also much evidence that a vegetarian or meat-restricted diet is healthier and this is a good reason to choose this dietary avenue. This is not to say that being a vegetarian doesn’t take planning, it does. Much of the protein (and to a much lesser degree vitamins, minerals and fats) we get easily from animal products are not readily found in plants, meaning a vegetarian must eat a broader range of plants to meet their essential nutrient needs. Given the downside of consuming so much meat, both for the environment and our health, taking the time to do a little planning couldn’t hurt. Facebook and Twitter will still be there after the ten minutes you’re gone doing some research.

There is sufficiently proper reasons to be a vegetarian but let’s not pretend that the ‘moral’ argument is one of them. Getting into an ‘conversation’ with a carnivore and bringing that argument up is only going to make said carnivore run out to the store and buy a cow’s worth of ground meat. Of course, hard core carnivores don’t care about being healthy either, so perhaps the point is moo-t. Vegetarians; do what’s right for yourself and let time win the battle for you. While you console the meat-eater in your family as they lay dying of cancer, you can say, “I told ya so.”

A Modern Day Trolley Problem

The Trolley Problem (aka the Trolley Dilemma) is sometimes used thought experiment used by psychologists and philosophers to gauge a person’s moral compass. The though experiment goes something like this:

Suppose there is a runaway train car (a trolley) that is rolling down the tracks towards five people tied to the tracks, or are lying on the tracks and are otherwise unable to move. You are off in the distance observing this and happen to see a lever next to you that if pulled will switch the runaway train car from its current course onto another set of tracks. However, on the diverted track there is single person tied to the tracks and will be killed if you pull the lever. Question is: Do you pull the lever to save five people and kill one or take no action and let five people die?

Keep in mind this is the Trolley Problem in its simplest iteration. There are several variations of this thought experiment which involve intentionally pushing a fat man onto the tracks to save five people (the Fat Man version) or intentionally pushing the man (a “fat villain”) who tied up the potential victims onto the tracks to avert the deaths of the innocent. Let’s not concern ourselves with these versions or ask questions about the characters of all the potential victims. For the sake of realism, however, we are going to alter the details of the thought experiment to a more likely scenario than initially presented. We’re going to do this because the Trolley Problem such as it is described above doesn’t present a realistic situation one would find themselves in and be forced to make a moral judgement. What I’d like to do is introduce a modern equivalent to the Trolley Problem, changing the problem to something more akin to what philosopher Judith Jarvis Thompson had in mind with her “brilliant surgeon” version of the Trolley Problem.

Here’s my version: Suppose you are a politician and if you don’t vote on a particular bill, five random people will lose their health care coverage and die from pre-existing conditions. If you do vote for this particular bill, the five people will keep their health care coverage but another single random person will lose their coverage and die from their pre-existing condition. In summary, if you don’t vote – if you take no action regarding the bill – five people will die. If you do vote for the bill – take action on the bill – one person will die and five will be saved. Do you vote for the bill or not?

Philosophically, what you as the politician is likely to do is based upon whether you are a utilitarian or a deontologist. That is, if you seek to do the greatest good, as a utilitarian you’re going to vote for the bill. If, on the other hand you think that committing certain actions like intentional harming someone are wrong, then you’re not going to vote for the bill. Of course, the obvious flaw with the deontologist’s position is that not voting for the bill – an inaction – is just as bad as intentional harm if it is your intention to abstain from the vote. In other words, an inaction is just as bad as an action if one intends towards the inaction. (The major flaw in Deontology is that intentions matter.) There is a choice to be made – vote or don’t vote – and once it is made, there is intention behind the given choice; this fact cannot be escaped. The deontologist likes to think that by not intending to ‘intentionally’ cause harm, they are absolved from whatever harm does happen. Obviously, this is madness as not voting for the bill – intentionally – causes harm and makes the deontologist’s actions morally impermissible.

This deconstruction of the deontologist’s position philosophically compels you to vote for the bill, thus taking the utilitarian route (if there’s no false dilemma here, which there may well be). Without knowledge of any of the random people involved, without knowing whether saving the five will result in a better or worse world, you should vote for the bill on the assumption that the death of five people is likely to wreak more sorrow and havoc than the death of one person. All things being equal among the random people, you are compelled to vote for the bill on purely philosophical grounds if you want to be considered a morally just person (such as morality is construed in the Western Industrialized world). However, what people are likely to do is much different in reality. 

In reality, most people take the deontologist’s route and think they are avoiding taking an action that intentionally harms a single person. This outcome was confirmed by a 2007 online experiment conducted by psychologists Fiery Cushman and Liane Young and biologist Marc Hauser. They concluded that by taking a positive action (doing something) that resulted in a positively negative consequence evoked emotions that clouded ‘better’ judgement. But why should this be the case? Why would ‘taking action’ result in feelings that assume the outcome will be worse than taking no action at all? Why does an apparently personal investment in an outcome change what a person will decide to do?

We may want an evolutionary psychologist to weigh in here or we may hypothesize that people generally ‘don’t want to get their hands dirty’ for fear of negative consequences, meaning, precisely, being responsible for one’s actions. As those of us familiar with the workings of Western culture know, we tend to forgive inaction that leads to harm as we work from the assumption that such consequences weren’t malicious in nature. Only, if one knows the consequences – that five people will die through the inaction of not voting – it is difficult to reason why this outcome isn’t just as malicious as voting. Again, the deontologist works from the premise that an action can be wrong and an inaction not wrong, but I’ve already argued this is demonstrably false as inaction is in fact an action because the decision itself is based on intention. The deontologist intends not to intentionally kill someone not realizing the initial intention intentionally kills five people. No matter what angle you view such moral dilemmas from, given only two choices, the deontological reasoning falters.

None of this takes into account other reason why you might vote or not vote. Perhaps you view situations like this and feel the need to do something, and therefore decide to vote. Or perhaps you’re a misanthrope and are indifferent to the people dying. There may also be the way such dilemmas are presented (for example, in the way they are written or are viewed in a virtual world) that may influence decision-making. Regardless of the one of the two choices made – if that’s all that are given – it still tells us something about the moral compass of the person making the choice. In my example, a deontologist has no firm philosophical ground to stand on. They are, in other words, irrational.

And this is why the Trolley Problem, formulated in 1967, is still relevant today. It would be wise to know when a populous is too irrational, if for no other reason than to prompt a re-evaluation of, say, educational programs. Of course, there is the other side of the coin in which people in powerful positions rely on an irrational populous, so such moral tests would be wise for them to administer as well so they might be aware of when citizenry might be becoming too smart for them to fool. Thought experiments, long considered the realm of lowly philosophers, are beneficial to everyone. And when they’re not, they still make for good conversations when you’re high.

Losing the War

As more and more people fall victim to mass gun violence, the debate between whether there should be more or less gun laws heats up. For a large majority of people, they fall on either side of this debate. The problem is, to be on either side of this debate suggests an unwillingness to think about the problem’s origins. Whether the public has a right to bear arms has nothing to do with what is allowing for the U.S.’s staggering gun violence problem – Collectively speaking, the U.S. has a deep, severe mental problem that is based upon its very foundation.*

[* That is to say, The U.S. as a country was born out of violence and established a two-century old patriarchal, racist society not much better than the U.S.’s country of origin.]

But this deep, severe mental problem is merely indicative of a larger problem; what it means to be human. In the last year there has been an alarming rise of practically fascist, regressive leftism in America paralleled by the number of people who think Donald Trump should be the President of the U.S. On both these sides there is a very particular way in which these people’s brains operate, which is to say however good their intentions may be, they are not capable of critically thinking not because they lack the tools – self-reflection requires no tools – but because they are determined to believe what they want to believe.

If the number of people on the planet is any indication, this lack of self-analysis and moreover, reasoning ability, has preserved and perpetuated the species. This same ability is what puts people at odds, though, and has long made the world an unfriendly place to live. It appears as though we may have to settle for this state of affairs in order to preserve and perpetuate the species, which really is the point of life after all. Our genes don’t care how we treat each other; they just want to get themselves into the next generation. If this is the case, it is more likely that people are going to be less rational than rational despite how many generations come and go. In other words, it will always be the case that people will make dumb decisions, do dumb things and believe in dumb ideas. Despite absolutely zero evidence, particle physicists cling to string theory. Despite the overwhelming evidence that smoking is harmful to the body, people still smoke. Despite the health problems that come with being obese, people still overeat. Despite being as far from science as one can get, people still heed warnings from their horoscope. Despite the fact that wealthy socialites contribute nothing to society, people still worship them. For a human, being dumb is inescapable.

It is tempting, seeing how humans are capable of as much hope as they are capable of stupidity, to assume people can be rational especially when lives are at stake. For example, cooler heads prevailed in October, 1962 during the Cold War when Russia attempted to base missiles in Cuba aimed at the U.S. Ultimately, Russia withdrew their weapons from the U.S.’s backyard and a nuclear war was averted. This is because everyone involved came to see that for either side, the whole debacle was a lose-lose situation. At the same time, Russia acted irrationally and thought, “What the heck, the U.S. won’t mind if we put some missiles in their backyard. After all, they have missiles in Italy aimed at us.” Sadly, hope is often a result of humans acting or doing something stupid. We ‘hope’ as a hedge against a cruel world in which we would otherwise feel completely defeated. In this example, we hoped to avoid nuclear war and we did, but first, someone did something which required hope as a hedge against their action. That is to say, if we build a nuclear weapon, we have to hope that we never have to use it which indicates building the nuclear bomb in the first place is irrational. (Using nuclear fission to produce energy, yes. Using it to kill people, um…)

Acting or thinking rationally is a foreign practice for most people. There are many reasons for this, the foremost being that thinking requires the brain to use a lot of energy and it goes against people’s general desire to be placated as soon as possible (despite evidence that prolonging the reception of an award or desire appears to allow for more enjoyment of the award or desire). One cannot even rationalize with a teenager who will post damning pictures of themselves on social media despite how far their posts may travel around the world to say nothing of their local police force because a teenager, like people in general, needs to placate their ego immediately. As I alluded to earlier, it is not a part of human nature to be rational and this is why it is so rare. With human population closing in on 7.3 billion people as of 2015, it appears there is no particular reason for the human race to be any more rational than it is if being irrational perpetuates the species. Notice if you will that the people with the most offspring are usually the least educated and often the most ideologically radicalized.

There is no rationalizing with an irrational person when there is nothing in it for the irrational person. An irrational person will choose to believe in a heavenly afterlife over being atheistic because even if they see an atheistic lifestyle as potentially making their earthbound life more important, they know that one day their earthbound life will end. In other words, the atheistic principle as it may apply doesn’t offer the ultimate in hope. If there is no potentially bigger reward for changing sides in a debate, it is very unlikely that people on opposite sides of a debate will come around to a new way of thinking. Once a person is indoctrinated into thinking a particular way, it is very difficult to change their mind. It is often not worth the energy one spends trying to do that unless one’s survival is literally at stake. That is to say, it is irrational to continually engage irrational people when there is only a small chance of changing their minds ‘for the better.’ It does happen, on occasion, that people do think deeply about their ideas and beliefs, but it will always be the case that such people will be vastly outnumbered and ultimately always be at the mercy of the irrational.

This is in part why, here at the end of 2015, I am coming home from the war. Fighting stupidity, however noble, will forever be a losing battle. Over the course of years of debate and attempted discussions, I’ve had very few rational, much less civil, interactions with people on a myriad of issues. It’s not worth trying to get people become uncomfortable with their ideas or beliefs; I only become a villain so I suppose it is better to let sleeping dogs lie unless I am confronted myself. I will allow people their beliefs if there is no cost to me, but of course one should not expect to get off easy when trying to engage me with their irrational ideas or beliefs. I otherwise don’t have the time to waste and I don’t want to end up like Socrates (as if I were important enough to be so lucky).

I have plans for 2016 that include contributing to answering the question of time, exploring Genetic Philosophy (developed by yours truly) and solving problems within the Philosophy of Language (as far as any philosophy is concerned), committing more time to my tourism blog and spending more time writing fiction (something people seem to lap up as they apparently identify strongly with lives that are not real) and reading for enjoyment. I have enjoyed writing and posting my thoughts here as any good philosopher must mentally masturbate, but I suppose I have reached the point in my life when I want to do other things.

This blog will be maintained in 2016 by occasional ruminations and relevant re-posts, but other than that, there will be no commentaries on religion, atheism, politics or any other current events. I know, I know, what will you do with yourselves? You can always follow Kim Kardashian on Twitter. 

The Problem With Humanism

Every time a New Atheist post something about humanism on atheism boards, I scoff. I scoff because this secular philosophy has no evidence to support its most basic assertions, in particular that each human being has some kind of inherent worth or value. More generally speaking, humanism supposedly bases ethical decisions on reason while trusting science when it comes to understanding the world. While the former sentence clearly has no evidence to support it, the latter sentence practically conflicts with itself as a philosophy that uses evidence and science to support certain beliefs abandons evidence and science in order to behave ethically, meaning, the ethics that are practiced are not evidence- or science-based. The ethics often used by New Atheists are supposedly arrived by reason.

 

For example, The Council for Secular Humanism maintains that they adhere to a consequentialist ethical system. Okay, great, but there is really no consensus among philosophers as to whether consequentialism is any better than, say, utilitarianism or deontology. Whether a particular brand of humanist subscribes to any ethical system has more to do with how the individual feels about the ethical system than the ethical system being a matter of reality. (I lean towards consequentialism myself, but this may change according to circumstance. More importantly, I recognize this. I’m a Realist like that.) Meanwhile, groups like the International Humanist and Ethical Union declare about their ethical system that, “Humanists have a duty of care to all of humanity including future generations.” I’m not saying that this isn’t a nice sentiment, just that it cannot be arrived at by reason, much less by evidence. If you ask this philosopher – and I’m the only one worth asking - reasons should be based on some kind of evidence. This is to say that if anything, the evidence would indicate that human beings care little beyond the immediate futures of their next of kin. The divergence of ideas surrounding the basic tenets of humanism do not lend itself to credibility.

 

Since New Atheists have hammered theist about having evidence for their beliefs – and rightly so – I believe that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. So it seems rather odd that there should be so much ambiguity between the declarations of various humanist organizations to say nothing of there being various humanist organizations. A quick Google of the question “What is humanism?” yields various answers from many humanist organizations; enough answers to categorize each organization according to the varying beliefs they hold. The Council for Secular Humanism, the American Humanist Association, the British Humanist Association, and the International Humanist and Ethical Union (for starters) all give different answers to the question. To be fair, each organization is similar enough in their answers to fall under a general philosophy we can call ‘humanism.’ Still, a philosophy arrived at by reason should not have as much ambiguity as humanism displays.

 

While I would say many of these brands of humanism are a more positive philosophy than their non-secular counterparts (at least more positive for one’s self-esteem, if nothing else), I do think that New Atheist humanists should be honest about their reasoning for committing to this philosophy. Since New Atheists demand so much honesty in debates, they should be honest here and admit that humanism has little to no evidential support. That, or go find the support for their ‘intuitions’ in biology or evolutionary psychology.

 

If one is going to demand that others ground their beliefs in evidence and science, they should do the same as well. Otherwise, it seems reasonable to say that two people who act alike must be alike. And this is reasonable because the evidence dictates that if it looks like a rat, walks like a rat and smells like a rat, it’s probably a rat. 

The Definition of God, Dammit

What do people mean when they use the word ‘God’? Often, they are referring to the God of their particular religious choosing, which in turn entails the particular qualities ascribed to that entity. For example, the qualities are particular when ‘God’ refers to one of the three monotheistic gods – Yahweh, God, Allah. [Each god is believed to be distinct by each one’s followers, insofar as each believer denies the existence of the others’ god when it comes down to the minute details.]  However, the general qualities of any one of the monotheistic gods persists (that is, shared amongst these gods). God is typical described in the following fashion, a fashion that is fraught with difficulties…

         

We begin with God as being supernatural, that is, outside or in some sense superior to nature. Problem is, there is no way for a believer to know this with certainty, reassurances from their god notwithstanding. Can anyone demonstrate how he or she can have knowledge of what is not natural to our universe? Despite the unlikelihood of anyone having knowledge of what is supernatural, the faithful wish to say it is none-the-less a quality of God. Sorry, but the application of faith does not prove a statement that requires a demonstration, a proof, to be considered true (especially in a universe where all proofs must be of nature for us to make inferences). Belief in a supernatural entity currently requires the acceptance of such a being prior to or without any evidence, which is clearly illogical. Given a believer’s current methodology for acquiring knowledge of supernatural things – that being no methodology – a believer may imagine whatever evidence they wish and cite it as proof of God's existence. Did it rain last night? That was God in action the believer will say. Yet a belief in their deity came before the use of rain as evidence for this being. If it is the case that God told whomever that He is supernatural, this does not automatically preclude the possibility that this being is lying. Using a similar methodology as before though, the believer has already concluded that God is good, so they don't think that He would lie. However, this lie is still within the realm of possibility, as we'll see when we question God's goodness. The idea that a deity is supernatural is super quickly in trouble.

Theistic objection: "God is a part of this universe but we cannot see or measure Him (for whatever reason)." That really doesn’t solve anything. This “transcendent God” who exists both in and out of our universe amounts to Panentheism; identifying God as an immanent force within all creation. The question of how a believer may come to possess knowledge of God’s existence is still suspect, especially when you consider the more one insists that their deity exists. If we return to Panentheism for a moment, if God is immanent in all creation we can surely measure God. It’s not like we’ve never measure anything in our universe before. But the believer may further their objection by saying we have in fact measured God though perhaps we don’t realize it. That’s all well and good but if we don’t know what we’ve measured, we have no business calling it a god.

Theistic objection: "God is the universe." I’m on board, only, this is called Pantheism which weakens traditional monotheism, unlike Panentheism. Using the word ‘God’ to identify the universe confuses the issue. The believer might as well call God the ‘Tao’ or even ‘Smurf’ since these words are all ambiguous on their best day.

Let's move on to God's next attribute, omnipotence. Since believers believe that God created the universe, they automatically assume that He is all-powerful. This is what you might call “jumping to conclusions” because it is not known how much power it takes to create a universe. It may be that you need an appropriate amount of knowledge to create a universe while only needing very little power. If there is a creator, it does not automatically follow that this creator is omnipotent. If robots could think, and it seems likely at some point they will, would they believe humans are all-powerful?

In supposing that some god does have enormous power, we may look upon this quality in two different ways. First, one might suppose that an omnipotent being could do anything it wants at all. It can suspend the laws of the universe and create square circles or turn people into pillars of salt (in which case we’re all screwed). As before, it cannot be known whether or not this ability to do whatever this entity wants is a matter of knowledge or of power. Maybe knowledge really is power. Maybe it’s Maybelline. I dunno. On the other hand, maybe God can only do what is logically possible. Sorry, no square circles. This is the position of most believers. However, if He is restricted to doing only what is logically possible, then it follows that anything an existent god has ever done is logically possible. This means that human beings (or some other sentient beings) could also do such things as create a universe with the appropriate amount of knowledge and/or power. Perhaps we'd even be able to raise the dead. Wait a second here, aren't people who are pronounced clinically dead resuscitated all the time? Hmm, suddenly God doesn’t seem like such a hotshot.

Believe it or not it gets worse. The problems with God's attributes are about to go from convoluted to downright wacky as we tackle the possibility of God’s omniscience. Ready, set, go!

There’s a big problem regarding The Supreme Cheese and the attribute of His omniscience. If God can know anything and everything at any given moment, then He can know the future with absolute precision. If this is true, then mankind has no free will, for God knows what you will do, why you will do it, and when. A god who knows everything already knows who is and is not condemned to Hell or some other kind of suffering. Has God arbitrarily created some people (or their souls, whatever) to suffer while being generous to others for no good reason we're privy to? Forgive me if I'm not okay with that premise. Sadly, some believers are okay with that and they make really good slaves for us more cunning folk. Pre-destination isn’t all bad though. I guess I can thank God I’m an atheist…But it doesn’t stop there. If God possesses absolute knowledge of our future, even if He chooses not to know such things, He is not omnipotent. God's possible infallible foreknowledge of events would preclude Him from doing whatever he wants when He wants to do it. If our future is immutable, God has no free will to change it, even if He somehow exists outside of space and time which blah blah blah re-read the first part of this entry. In the case that God could use his omnipotence to manipulate events to make them turn out as He wishes, He couldn't know he was going to do so prior to taking such action. Again, if God "chooses" not to know the future in order to take certain actions, He is still a slave to the future He could  know. Are you getting a headache?

It’s called a one-way street, people. Either God is omniscient and there is no free will and no omnipotence, or God is not all-knowing which allows for free will. Personally, if god does know it all, I would appreciate an answer as to why Paula Abdul was ever on a panel of judges overseeing a singing competition.

By now the believer will start arguing along the lines that God's knowledge somehow differs from knowledge as we know it. Sure, but then it's not what we call "knowledge", is it? What I'm implying here is that believers don't really have a clue what they're talking about when they say God is omnipotent or all-knowing.

Okay, now it’s wrestle with God's supposed goodness. Given the Judeo-Christian scriptures or the Koran, it's hard to believe that this deity is universally benevolent. In the Old Testament (OT) this god is one bloodthirsty SOB who has Hell set up by the time the New Testament (NT) rolls around. Given the Bible in particular, it cannot be concluded that God is all-good because conditions exist to acquire the benefits of God's benevolence. For God to be as wonderful as believers usually claim, God's benevolence would have to be completely unconditional, meaning that even atheists would get to go to Heaven if Heaven exists. Although, can anyone give me an example of any completely unconditional act of benevolence? Even altruistic people do what they do to make themselves feel better or score “karma points,” which is their condition for committing to such acts. Altruistic people, or gods, cannot escape the reasons or conditions for doing what they do. The notion of love, for example, being ‘unconditional’ is nonsense.

Because God’s love is conditional we can infer that any existent god is not unconditionally benevolent. Duh. This is in fact what makes the notion of believing any particular religion worthwhile. Belivers of organized religion follow certain rules in hopes of reaping the benefits of God's love. But if we're all God's creation as believers claim, why should God choose to be good to some people and not others? Why not just make life wonderful for everyone or make a world where it’s impossible to bend His rules? Perhaps the creations are flawed, but then why would there be a flaw in God's design? This might suggest that the deity in question is flawed as well unless, well, this is the way the believer’s god wants things to be. Since suffering exists and we cannot be sure why, God no longer seems to be such a nice guy. In fact, He seems like a prick.

Theistic objection: “We suffer because God gave us free will. Free will is really important to God because He wants you to choose to follow Him.” Let me get this straight; God wants us to choose to follow Him but if we don’t choose to we have to suffer for it? I don’t see the logic in a god creating such a situation. It’s the equivalent of wanting a romantic interest to be with you of their own free will but if they choose not to be with you, you’re prepared to kill them. Nice.

         

We're not done just yet. By what standard is God's goodness judged? For God to be considered good He must be capable of evil, otherwise He is simply amoral. God can only be good if He is allowed to make choices. If we retread God's omniscience a moment and are faced with the proposition that ifGod has no free will, He is not good. Again, if there is no real choice, He is amoral. Now, if God is good, there must exist a standard of goodness apart from this divine entity that we are using to come to the conclusion that this god is good. This would allow atheists to be as moral as anyone else. If we take the position that this deity is the standard of goodness (a usual theistic defense) then God may do anything He wants and we would have to conclude what He does is good despite any evidence to the contrary. Then, if God did do something wrong or evil or lied to us, we couldn't know as much because the definition of God automatically leads us to believe that everything He does is good. Talk about being able to get away with murder!

         

Theistic objection: "Yes, there is evil in the universe, but it is actually all for the greater good of God's plan." I might buy this if it could be demonstrated that anyone knows what this ‘plan’ is. If we were planning to rob a bank together and I told you that for you to be shot and killed by the police was for the greater good of my plan, it's unlikely that you would go with me on the heist.

         

Now we turn to God's appearance. If we could see God what would He look like? Or, if we saw God would our eyes melt? The monotheistic believers like to think of God on human terms. They have prescribed Him a gender. So, if God has a penis, we might assume that He has a face, arms, legs, etc. Although, if God does have a dick, I wonder why He made Adam first…Anyway, theists do this so that it's easier to relate to their gods. I mean, how promiscuous was Zeus? Ah, those wacky Greeks. If God is indeed human-like in appearance, this is a minor concern. All we may infer from it is that God likely possesses other human like qualities, such as being the squirrelly boss no one likes.

Epicurus made a poignant observation about the attributes of God over 2,300 years ago. As he put it: If God is willing to prevent evil but cannot, God is impotent. If God is able and not willing, (He) is malevolent. If God is both willing and able, then why is there evil? The traditional qualities of the monotheistic god as we have laid them out here are largely not reconcilable with each other. This doesn’t prevent believers from going through incredible contortions of reasoning to defend them, however. Of course, the more contorting you have to do, the more likely you are to lose at Twister.

         

Is it possible that the qualities ascribed to God are merely the attributes that people wished they possessed? Who wouldn't want to know everything or have such incredible power? People certainly wish they were perfect. However, in failing to be so they have imagined an idol they can look up to and try to emulate. I suppose in the case of God, it seems the more perfect people wish they could be, the more imaginative they really are. Well, it's okay to be imaginative. Being unrealistic and confused is another matter though, and that's exactly what the traditionally mentioned deity's definition is. Perhaps believers should come up with a less confusing and a more likely description of God if they want to be taken seriously. They should be careful, though. They wouldn't want them to rob God of His incredible essence, unless of course God is incredible because of  His convoluted definition. Well then, that would be extra hard to believe now wouldn't it?