William Lane Craig: Some atheists suppress and deny their belief in God

Image for Craig's newest podcast episode

I published a new article for Examiner.com titled "William Lane Craig: Some atheists suppress and deny their belief in God." Read the first paragraph below. Click the above link for the full article.

In the newest episode of the Reasonable Faith Podcast titled "Does Reason Lead to Atheism or Theism," William Lane Craig argues that some atheists actually believe in God although they deny their belief. Craig explains that sin and complexities of human psychology can lead atheists to suppress their belief in God.

Truth in Action Ministries: Church/state activism to blame for Colorado shooting

Jerry Newcombe, spokesperson for Truth in Action Ministries

I published a new article for Examiner.com titled "Truth in Action Ministries: Church/state activism to blame for Colorado shooting." Read the first paragraph below and click on the above link for the full article:

Jerry Newcombe, spokesperson of Truth in Action Ministries, has recently weighed in on the Aurora, Colorado midnight shooting in which 12 were killed and 38 were injured. In a recent column titled “A dark night indeed,” Newcombe placed blame for the shooting on activists for the separation of church and state.

Local reader argues naturalistic worldview is inadequate

I authored a letter to the editor titled “Natural Explanation for Flood Prevention” which was a response to a published article in which a local reverend claimed that prayer had something to do with stopping the September flooding in Northeastern Pennsylvania. I argued, in less than 250 words, that naturalistic explanations are better than supernatural explanations and, when we have a perfectly reasonable naturalistic explanation, we ought to reject a supernatural explanation. I quoted Theodore Shick in the letter who said, among other things, “You shouldn't assume the existence of anything that's not needed to explain the phenomena.”

A letter to the editor published on December 11 – approximately a month after mine was published – titled “Life explanation rests with God” argues that my “naturalistic world view is inadequate to explain the bigger questions of life” and “A good hypothesis such as the God of the Bible provides a consistent metaphysical foundation for explaining the important realities and phenomena encountered in life.”

Here is the letter that was published:

Life’s explanation rests with God

In a recent letter, Justin Vacula discussed Occam’s razor, explaining phenomena with the fewest assumptions and using a theory that has the most explanatory power.

I submit that he is wrong about prayer and supernatural intervention. His naturalistic world view is inadequate to explain the bigger questions of life.

The naturalistic atheistic model holds that (a) the universe was created from nothing; (b) life came from non-life; (c) persons came from the impersonal; (d) minds come from the mindless; (e) order from the orderless; (f) reason from the non-rational; (g) morality from the non-moral; (h) information without a sender; (i) code from a nonprogrammer; (j) truth from an accident.

The biblical theistic model holds (a) that the universe was created by a Creator; (b) that life comes from ultimate Life; (c) persons come from the Superpersonal; (d) minds come from the ultimate Mind; (e) order comes from an Orderer; (f) reason comes from a rational Being; (g) morality comes from a moral Person; (h) information comes from a Sender; (i) code comes from a personal Programmer; (j) truth comes from ultimate Truth.

I invite the reader to examine both models to see which has the greatest explanatory power. A good hypothesis such as the God of the Bible provides a consistent metaphysical foundation for explaining the important realities and phenomena encountered in life.

(a) God uniquely accounts for the physical universe’s beginning; (b) God uniquely accounts for the ordered complexity and the design evident in the universe; (c) God uniquely accounts for the reality of abstract nonphysical realities such as numbers, which are the foundation of mathematics and which are not explainable in terms of physical matter and its processes; (d) God uniquely accounts for the meaning, purpose and significance that human beings sense and yearn for; (e) God uniquely accounts for man’s sense of the design.

Without meaning and purpose, the naturalistic atheistic model leads to angst, despair, dread and ultimate extinction of human beings.

I submit it is better to be “standing on the promises of God” than the idea that everything came from nothing.

James U. Sinclair

Wright Township

The third paragraph of his letter to the editor posits “the naturalistic atheistic model” which the writer says “hold that (a) the universe was created from nothing; (b) life came from non-life; © persons came from the impersonal; (d) minds come from the mindless; (e) order from the orderless; (f) reason from the non-rational; (g) morality from the non-moral; (h) information without a sender; (I) code from a nonprogrammer; (j) truth from an accident.

The phrase “naturalistic atheistic model” should be the first red flag here. The reader uses a certain term and seemingly posits what all naturalists (those who believe that the natural world is all that exists) believe when there is no 'unifying dogma' or 'set beliefs' for atheists or naturalists because there is often disagreement on issues. It is also important to note that not all atheists are naturalists and not all naturalists are atheists. Do all naturalists and atheists believe what the reader posits, are the points even relevant, and are there fundamental misunderstandings taking place?

Contention A, right from the start, is problematic because there is wide disagreement about the origin of the universe. Personally, I do not know where to stand on matters of 'becoming' regarding the universe, but the Big Bang is certainly an adequate model to describe the expansion of the universe and the start of time as we know it.

When someone asks, “What happened before the Big Bang?” I often respond by saying, “If the Big Bang is the start of time as we know it, how can we talk about 'before time?” and, after some further discussion when God is typically invoked, say “If God is uncaused and you use God to explain the universe, why can't I say that the universe was uncaused or there is an unknown cause?” Claiming that God was the cause of the universe when lacking an explanation appears to be what is called the argument from ignorance or the 'god of the gaps' argument – because we lack an explanation, theists believe they are justified in positing God to answer the question. This method of reasoning, of course, is fallacious; just because we happen to lack an explanation does not mean that one can be justified in saying “God did it.” Why not say, “I don't know” and continue research and/or suspend judgment until there is a solid answer?

Naturalists need not posit that “the universe was created from nothing,” but rather can offer other explanations or simply suspend judgment on the matter.

Contention B, I would wager, is something that a vast majority of naturalists (if not almost all of them) would believe, but this is not a problematic assertion. When considering questions of the origins of life, answers are not always clear or well-defined as some (including myself) would like them to be, but this is not a problem once we start considering probability. Consider the vastness of the universe, all of the stars that explode and emit elements, and the age of the universe. Of all the 'chances' that could have lead to life, the probability seems quite high that life, somewhere and somehow, would originate. We, of course, are the lucky ones who happen to be experiencing life today. The Miller/Urey experiments, for those interested, show that life can indeed come from non-life. Additionally, Craig Venter has created synthetic life.

A lack of explanation regarding exactly how life arose from non-life does not justify belief in God, but rather should lead us to pursue further research and not assume that God “had to intervene” or have some part in the process just because we might lack an explanation.

Contention C is interesting because I am not quite sure what it means. The idea of person, as I understand it, is a philosophical concept similar to 'identity' in which we ascribe labels to homo sapiens. Are persons 'coming' from anything? It seems not. Personhood is simply an idea and a label we put on human beings. Perhaps the letter writer will elaborate on this.

Contention D claims that naturalists believe that minds come from the mindless, but there is disagreement regarding theories of mind amongst naturalists; there is not one 'set' idea that naturalists must believe. Some naturalists, for example, are eliminative materialists - those who believe that there is no mind, but only the brain.

Mindedness and consciousness may still have some 'gaps' and it might be the case that there is much understanding that is currently not had, but this, once again, does not allow one to justifiably posit God because we lack an explanation.

Contention E claims that “order comes from the orderless.” What we call 'order' is something we view as having some sort of regularity or 'rhyme and rhythm.' When considering the laws of the universe that are guaranteed regularities that arise from the Big Bang, it's quite easy to understand order under a naturalistic worldview. This “sense of design” that the letter writer later mentions is us, as humans, seeing what might rightly be called 'illusions of design' throughout the universe when, instead of assuming design, we can just say 'regularities.'

Contention F posits that naturalists believe reason comes from the non-rational. While the earliest forms of life almost certainly did not have reasoning abilities like humans have today, we can consider an evolutionary perspective and understand quite easily why reasoning abilities would evolve, be beneficial for survival, and be useful.

Alvin Plantinga famously argues that naturalism is not compatible with evolution because, roughly, evolution is not 'concerned' with justified true beliefs, but rather for survival. This argument, though, seems to miss the mark. Those with good reasoning abilities, in times of early hominids, would be better suited for survival. Holding a justified true belief, for example, [that was the product of good reasoning abilities] would allow one to efficiently and accurately gather water, hunt for food in desirable areas, and so much more. Over time, those with good reasoning abilities would survive and those with bad reasoning abilities would die. Of course, not all 'bad reasoners' would die because some can get lucky and be smart in some areas while not-smart in others.

Contention G posits that naturalists believe that morality comes from the non-moral. Not all naturalists will ascribe to notions of morality and may be moral nihilists. Some naturalists also might argue that morality is relative: it differs from person to person and from culture to culture and therefore there are no moral truths or any standing to make a claim about morality. Personally, I use the term 'morality' as short-hand language to describe many things: what actions would be appropriate and inappropriate in certain situations, what actions should lead us to a better society, how we are to treat others, etc.

On a naturalistic view, morality is very plausible. Just on the topic of humans – and to not elaborate too much on this point – we can look around us and realize that other humans have the same basic needs, wants, values. and desires as us; other persons generally value their own lives and consider living to be much more desirable than not living, want to have meaningful relationships with others, want to be secure, and so much more. Because I generally do not want to experience harm, discomfort, and whatever else might make life undesirable and realize that others are like me, I want to behave in a fashion of respect toward other people and act as a functional member of society.

We need no gods to explain morality. It is odd to claim that morality 'comes' from something other than a product of reasoning and as an evolutionary by-product.

Contentions H and I, I believe, rest on a huge equivocation. The reader states that naturalists believe that information exists without a sender and code exists from a nonprogrammer. The reader doesn't elaborate on this, but I believe I understand what he is saying. Equivocation is an informal logical fallacy that occurs when someone tries to use a word two (or more) times, although with different definitions. The reader, I imagine, is thinking of 'programming' and 'code' relating to DNA and thinks that 'programming' and 'code' can only come from thinking beings. When persons talk of 'programming' and 'code' relating to DNA, they do not mean this in the sense that we usually refer to when speaking of computers. Persons talk of DNA as a code because the basic 'letters' of our genetic 'code' are present throughout us.

Finally, Contention J claims that naturalists believe “truth from an accident.” I am not sure what this means because we can use our reasoning faculties to arrive at truths without ever positing a God who had to establish these truths. Consider, for example, one of the laws of logic known as the law of non-contradiction which posits that something can not be both a and not-a. For example, a clock can not be both on the wall and not on the wall. This appears to be a truth and it is no accident; we understand that a clock can not be both on the wall and not on the wall for very good reasons that need not be explained.

We see that contentions A, B, D, and G are not contentions that all naturalists believe. Contention C appears to deal with a philosophical concept that has nothing to do with whether naturalism is reasonable or not. Regarding contention E, the reader believe that naturalism can't account for order, but this simply isn't the case. Naturalism, despite Plantinga's argument, can account for reason and thus 'dispels' contention F. Contentions H and I are based on equivocations and naturalistic perspectives can explain how the 'genetic code' functions without assuming a god. Naturalists can account for truths without appealing to a supernatural truth-maker, so contention J is 'out.'

Now that we see why the contentions the letter writer proposed are not problematic for naturalists, let's explore why theism can't account for certain phenomena and why the explanation of 'God' is a poor explanation.

The letter writer claims that “God uniquely accounts for the physical universe's beginning. How do we know this and better yet, how can we posit that a specific single god created the universe? Even if we were to admit that the universe has a cause, how are we to leap to a specific cause reason, for there, that the god of the Bible is responsible? For all we know, an all-evil god, a time traveler, a council of gods, or a civilization in a parallel universe could have created the universe. All of these hypotheses, while they may seem unreasonable, seem to me no more reasonable than belief in the god of the Bible. Once again, additionally, if the theist asserts that God was uncaused and an uncaused cause is adequate for explaining the origin of the universe, the atheist can rightly posit, while following this logic that the theist assumes, that an uncaused Big Bang is sufficient to explain the universe – and here we are not appealing to the supernatural and we understand that the Big Bang occurred.

The letter writer claims that “God uniquely accounts for the ordered complexity and the design evident in the universe.” Again, why ought the god of the Bible be more reasonable than other unlikely hypotheses? We don't need God to explain order and what we see as design in the universe because we can appeal to natural laws and understand order. Design is simply an illusion that is better explained with the term regularity; while the universe might seem like some sort of being created it because we see order, we need not assume that a being designed the universe.

The letter writer seemingly appeals to the Transcendental Argument for God (TAG) and writes, “God uniquely accounts for the reality of abstract nonphysical realities such as numbers which are the foundation of mathematics and which are not explainable in terms of physical matter and its processes.” Why does the reader assume that numbers are not explainable by physical processes? Numbers, it seems, are contingent upon humans; if humans did not exist, the concept of numbers would not exist. We use numbers as heuristic tools in order to talk about quantities – and the use of numbers is very useful in our everyday lives. Other “abstract nonphysical realities” such as laws of logic are not the product of human thinking and would remain true if all humans were to suddenly die – and this is so because objective truths are separate from us. “The truth is not concerned about what we think of it.”

Speaking of “abstract nonphysical realities,” I'd like to return to the law of non-contradiction and the idea of contradictions. We understand that reasoning breaks down if there were a contradiction and that those who hold contradictory beliefs are behaving in an irrational fashion. For example, if I tell you that I was working at Bill's Market from 8AM to 3PM and was sleeping at home from 8AM to 3PM, you'd be quite puzzled – and for good reason. I can't be both sleeping at home from 8AM to 3PM and working at Bill's Market from 8AM to 3PM. The law of non-contradiction and the concept of a contradiction might be an “abstract nonphysical reality,” but this can be adequately explained without appealing to God. We can quibble about whether we 'discovered' abstract non-physical entities or whether they are contingent (or something else), but this doesn't allow us to justly posit God as the only answer as to how to account for these things. For more on TAG, please listen to this debate.

The letter writer continues to state that “God uniquely accounts for the meaning, purpose, and significance that human beings sense and yearn for.” God has no monopoly on meaning, purpose, and significance. I dealt with this extensively in this post. I argued that whether or not God exists has no bearing on whether meaning can be found in life.

The letter writer writes, “God uniquely accounts for man's sense of design.” I don't understand how this is the case. It can be the case, though, that we look at the universe and consider it to be magnificent, do not understand how the universe can be like it is (especially in earlier times of humans), and believe, then, fallaciously, that a being must be designed it because it appears to be so complex. We see order and assume that God is responsible for the order. With increased knowledge from science, philosophy, and other disciplines, we understand that this thinking is fallacious and can posit naturalistic explanations instead of appealing to the supernatural.

The reader than makes quite an extravagant claim, “Without meaning and purpose, the naturalistic atheistic model leads to angst, despair, dread, and ultimate extinction of human beings.” This claim has no basis. Many naturalists and atheists, of course, are not wallowing in metaphysical anguish of angst, despair, and dread. How ought the 'naturalistic atheistic model' also lead to ultimate extinction of humans? Regardless, whether or not naturalism and atheism 'led' to dread does not show whether or not belief in naturalism or any supernatural entities is justified. This appears to simply be an argument from utility.

We see that belief in naturalism, the idea that all that exists is the natural world, is must more plausible than belief in God. Even if it is the case that naturalism can't account for some realities, this does not mean that one can suddenly 'inject God' and believe that belief in God is justified because naturalism can't account for a phenomena.

Catholic League launches "Adopt an Atheist" campaign

I published a new article for Examiner.com titled "Catholic League launches "Adopt an Atheist" campaign." Read this article and more on my Examiner.com page and please subscribe for instant updates.

Reader blames 'homosexual agenda' and secular humanism for Penn State scandal

I published a new Examiner.com article titled "Reader blames 'homosexual agenda' and secular humanism for Penn State scandal." Read this article and more on my Examiner.com page and please subscribe for instant updates.

Wall of Shame: Family Members #2

My Aunt Lori is such a 'loving Christian' [and so is my Aunt Carolann] About a month or so after she added me as a friend on Facebook, she responded with vitriol (presumably because she read something I wrote) on my Facebook wall and in Facebook messages. She thinks that I am still a Catholic [Apparently giving up candy for Lent, going to church, being an alter boy, being confirmed, etc makes someone a Catholic forever. While some Catholics may think this, it's quite absurd because one can't be both a Catholic and an atheist (one who lacks belief in any gods], threatens me with Hell, am dishonest about my beliefs, is lying about what my family members are saying, is now calling family members to "talk to them about me," says that I will turn out to be a nothing [like my father, of course, because she also is bashing him for some reason and bringing him into this].

Some information is blotted out above. My aunt claimed that I was saying bad things about my mother and her boyfriend online (which led to my mother calling my phone to scream and cry in on a voicemail message). I later had to explain that I didn't say any of these things after some unneeded major drama. My aunt also claims that my "Aunt Dee" (I won't use her name here) is saying bad things about me which is false because I am on very good terms with "Aunt Dee."

It's obviously the case that not all religious people are like this, but I would find it extremely hard to believe that her religious ideas are not the cause of this nonsense (specially because she brings this into the discussion). The point of this post, really, is to show how harmful religious beliefs can be - to lead family members such as my Aunt Lori to send me nonsense and try to make my life worse.

Atheists need to come out if they can so that this nonsense is ebbed - help to end the marginalization, stigmatization, and invisibility of atheists. Theists, too, need to speak up in their own communities when they hear atheist-bashing language or other wild misconceptions.

I eventually blocked my aunt after she ceased to actually defend her beliefs and failed to respond to anything anyone was saying. Spew hate, talk nonsense...why not? I would think that she would follow 1 Peter 3:15 if she believes "the bible is from god above," but I suppose not.

Pat Robertson: Lack of belief in God is to blame for rise in anti-depressant use

I published an article on Examiner.com titled "Pat Robertson: Lack of belief in God is to blame for rise in anti-depressant use." View this article on more on my Examiner.com page and please subscribe for instant notification of updates!

Are atheists just as bad as racists?

(This is a Facebook screenshot in which a someone claims that atheists who "insult people" by "tearing them down due to their faith" is "as bad as racism and prejudice." Information is blotted out to protect the identities of some people (even though they are quite happy to claim that [some] atheists are just as bad as racists).

Backstory on this issue and the above picture...

(you don't need to read this to understand everything, but feel free to do so or simply skip to the next bolded section in this post):

At the expense of some drama, I feel that an issue desperately needs to be addressed right here and right now. This Friday, after my monthly "Drinking Skeptically" meetup of the NEPA Freethought Society, two friends of mine, with me, went to a local business (name removed in the above picture) to 'shoot the breeze,' play some Scrabble, and not go to a nightclub.

One of my friends, Patrick, whom I first met at the meetup who wanted to spend some more time with my other friend and me, when entering the business, sat down and initiated discussion with some of the other patrons sitting adjacent to us. I'll recount that which I can remember although, of course, memory can be faulty and I don't remember everything. Patrick asked a group of three people "Can I ask you a personal question?" and all responded in the affirmative. Patrick asked, "Do you believe in God?" At least two of them said, "I don't really go to church though" or something very similar.

One of the persons in the group said "that's a very personal question" after the person said that it was okay to ask a personal question. Patrick responded saying, "yes, it is a personal question." Soon after this, two persons of the group walked away and left the business. One of the persons stayed to discuss and said something similar to "I want to send my children with church so they can be functioning in life." I said, looking up from the Scrabble board, something similar to "Why does one need church to be functioning? Do you think atheists aren't functioning?" The person responded, "No, I think atheists are functioning" and we entered into a short discussion about whether God is needed for morality.

Soon after this, the owner of the business, a person whom I know and have debated with on various occasions about Christianity (he's a Christian) came to the area where my group was sitting with a religious book of some sorts. Patrick asked him what he was reading and we had a short discussion about religious experiences. The owner said that he came to talk to us because a person alleged that Patrick, when someone mentioned church, responded with "Eww" and this person felt offended and left. The owner said something similar to, "I don't appreciate what you did and I don't appreciate customers leaving because of what you said."

Patrick immediately objected saying that he didn't say "eww" and did not mean to offend anyone. He said that he would like to resolve the situation, meet the person accusing him, and apologize if anyone got offended because he does not intend to offend anyone. The owner refused to do so and only would, after some discussion about the situation, tell the person what Patrick said to him. The owner did not ask us to leave [and we actually stayed until the business closed]. The person who stayed to talk about morality came back to talk, and the accuser failed to face Patrick. The person who stayed to talk concurred that "Eww" was not said and said that he enjoyed talking with us.

I told Patrick that nothing he said was offensive and that if a person is offended by something as simple as a response of "eww" to "I go to church" (whether he said it or not) is not Patrick's problem, but rather the problem of the churchgoer. This is especially ironic because earlier in the night, when Patrick asked someone if he/she believed in a god, the person shuddered and said yes. Patrick said something like "Wow, that tells me alot if you would respond like that." After that discussion, Patrick and I talked about how people get so defensive, are often reluctant to explain their positions - but people like us are happy to explain what we do and do not believe. Truth, I said, should fear nothing.

About 24 hours after the discussion at the business, the above picture comes in....and now you have the backstory to make more sense of what happened.

Update (a few hours after posting): After this post was authored, I discovered that some more people, including the owner of the business, were talking about this 'incident' online.

The initial claim, made by the owner of the business, was that the offense was a result of the comment "ew" when someone spoke of church-going.

Now, the claim, from one certain person, is that Patrick was 'laughing' and 'mocking.'

Now, the owner of the business is blaming the group of three (myself, Patrick, and another friend) for insulting a group of four people [keep in mind that four people weren't even sitting in the couch and one person who was sitting stayed to chat with us and said that nothing offensive was said].

The story is changing...how interesting.

Backstory over!

Throughout my close to three years as an atheist, I often meet religious people who, in a response to a discussion or even writing of mine that no one is compelled to read, claim that atheists, for publicly denying the validity of religious claims, are being offensive. Such people often resort to the profoundly lackluster 'defense' of 'right to opinion' (and seemingly now, right to faith as shown in the picture) somehow claiming that their beliefs should not be challenged, those who do so are acting in an immoral fashion, and that "no one deserves to be mocked or laughed at."

I have noted on previous occasions that I have never, ever, ever heard an atheist resorting to these lines of 'defense.' Atheists I know who are very public about their atheism hear all sorts of egregiously offensive remarks from theists, but they don't hide behind a 'right to opinion' or fail to have the discussions if they happen to feel offended. Theists, it seems, speak from a perspective of great privilege and are not accustomed to defending their beliefs (as the Bible in 1 Peter 3:15 compels followers of the New Testament to do).

When I am in a conversation and believe that someone said something quite egregious to me, I respond to the claim and try to resolve the problem. For example, someone in a recent conversation told me that I haven't had enough experience in life yet and that is why I don't believe in God. Further, she said that atheists are unhappy, lonely, and bitter and while I might be happy now, I won't be later in life. Instead of just walking away from the discussion or whatever else, I responded to this claim that might anger a great deal of atheists.

Theists often work from the false assumption that disagreement is somehow 'judging' someone (see above picture) and that disagreement is disrespect. I have answered this objections in this post and would rather not rehash my responses to this. To quickly summarize, disagreement with an idea should not be construed as a character evaluation of a person holding the idea, people should not assume that others consider them to be 'stupid' because they disagree with an idea, and we need to 'separate beliefs from persons' by 'stepping back from our beliefs' in order to challenge our own beliefs, get closer to arriving at truth, and have discussions with those who disagree with us.

This idea of 'right to opinion' is probably my least favorite statement anyone can possibly utter in any discussion [related to religion]. Am I acting in an immoral fashion if I present an objection to your position? Shall I refrain from ever uttering disagreement because people might claim offense? Holding an opinion simply doesn't make something true. Not all opinions are 'created equal' and many opinions can be said to have more truth-value than others. Why is it the case that you have a 'right to opinion' and I, apparently, do not have a 'right to voice my opinion?'

I wonder why -- if it is even the case that someone who might be so offended by the response of "Ew" when one would admit going to church -- someone would even have discussions about their beliefs if persons are so easily threatened when they are talking about them. If I, for instance, did not want to talk about topic x and someone asked a question about topic x, I would say that I did not want to talk about topic x. If the person continued to talk about topic x, I would leave the situation or do something to stop the discussion of topic x. While all people are different and may not take this seemingly rational approach, it makes little sense to subject yourself to a discussion that you do not want to take part in and then complain about what was said in the discussion when you had an option to not have the discussion and were later given the option to rectify the problem.

Racism

Racists operate under the irrational belief that some people, typically because of skin color or country of origin, are inferior to other people. Some racists may want some individuals to have less rights than others, may claim that 'mixing of races' is bad for whites, etc. Contrary to what some racists may believe, race is a social construct and there is no 'scientific basis for racism.' While I certainly can't 'speak for all racists' and am not interested in touching on the 'finer points' of racism, I hope that my readers are not racists and generally understand what a racist is for purposes of the discussion.

Atheists, on the other hand, only, at the bare minimum, lack belief in any gods. While many atheists may share similar beliefs (separation of church and state is a good thing, there is no good reason to believe in anything supernatural, faith is not a good pathway to knowledge), it is absurd to compare atheists to racists. Disagreement with theists (or even mocking and laughing at if it happens) is much different than the discrimination against certain people (and much more) because of their skin color or country of origin.

Assume that, and I do not do this, that I said, to a particular theist that they are silly for believing in any gods and said, in a laughing manner, "Are you serious?" when they presented their ideas. Can this even rightly be said to be "just as bad as racism?"

I, and almost [if not all] every atheist I have met, have never argued that theists should have less rights than atheists, that people are biologically inferior because they believe in gods, or anything similar. My arguments against faith-based belief and the like are against ideas, not persons; I don't discriminate against persons by any means.

It seems quite disconcerting that this topic even has to be addressed. Voicing disagreement with someone on matters of religious belief is not "as bad as racism."

It's also quite ironic that a person who says "get some class" compares atheists to racists.

Responding to "Atheists Tackle Simple Theology and Arguments"

Although I have not received the criticism of "you tackle simple theology and simple arguments" very much, atheists -- particularly those labeled "new atheists" (whatever that means) -- receive this criticism from their critics. During the recording of the NEPA Freethought Society's first podcast, I couldn't help to think that some of the assertions being made by local individuals were very easy to attack because they seemed quite elementary, fallacious, silly, or otherwise problematic at face value. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately?) many arguments for gods can't stand the criticism and are typically very easy to pick apart. Atheists often attack weak arguments and then are criticized for not going after "serious arguments," but what can we possibly tackle if all of the arguments do not stand philosophical scrutiny?

After about two years of devoting a very large deal of time to participating in religious discussions, reading books, listening to debates, blogging about religious arguments, etc, I feel that I've 'heard it all' and don't find many new arguments for gods that I haven't previously tackled. While arguments may be more refined and while Christian academics may have thought about some of the issues more, their arguments are similar to those of lay theists who haven't considered the issues. If there are some really good arguments out there, I simply haven't heard them.

How about four popular arguments from one of the most renowned and respected apologists? I will note the main flaws, but I will not tackle them all here in full because they would require entire individual posts (and I have tackled these in previous posts that will be linked in this post).

Take, for example, William Lane Craig. One of his main arguments is the 'Moral Argument' which comes in many forms (You can't make sense of objective moral values without God. Objective moral values do exist. Therefore God exists.). This argument ultimately boils down to an argument from ignorance (I can't explain objective moral values, therefore God exists). Morality can be explained without invoking a god and morality coming from God is problematic because of the Euthyphro Dilemma. For more, please read my "A Naturalistic Explanation of Morality: Refuting the Moral Argument" and my "Making Sense of Ethics in a Modern Scientific Worldview."

Argument two is the 'Fine Tuning Argument' which also comes in many forms (The universe is so finely tuned for our existence; for if the values for the fundamental constants for the universe were a wee bit different, human life would not exist. These values can only come about by chance or design. It couldn't be by chance. Therefore the universe was designed by God.). This argument mainly fails because of a flawed understanding of probability. Given the vastness of the universe, it would be fair to expect somewhere where life would arise (and would also be reasonable to believe that there is life on some other planet) because there are so many different combinations of these values which would arise and be conducive to life. Why assume that any god would be needed here? Further, just because something seems 'finely tuned' (even if it is the case that if the values were wee different that there wouldn't be life or other values wouldn't work) does not entail that god did it. This argument appears to be another "I can't explain this or this seems special, therefore god" move. I've addressed this more in detail here.

Argument three is the 'Kalam Cosmological Argument.' The argument is typically similar to this: Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. The universe has a cause. That cause is God. How does it follow that God created the universe? This argument asserts that God is uncaused and therefore created the universe (because everything else has a cause and we can't have an infinite regress, apparently). Why can't it be the case that the universe is uncaused or that the cause of the universe is not God (but rather the big bang)? I haven't addressed this in length in my blog just yet (particularly because I am not well versed in cosmology), but might get around to it at some point.

Argument four is the resurrection of Jesus. Craig asserts various points, depending on the debate (an empty tomb, followers of Jesus claiming to see Jesus after he died, Jesus' death by crucifixion on the cross, Jesus was buried, etc) and reasons, from these points, that the most rational explanation to draw is that Jesus was raised from the dead by God. For sake of length and for the sake of the argument, let's assume all of these points are true. How can a miraculous explanation, the least probable event possible, be the best explanation for the given data? Competing hypotheses that may be drawn from the data are far more probable. Further, just because we can't explain these facts doesn't entail that belief in a miracle is permissible. I have dealt with this and more here in my "Jesus Resurrection Claims..." post.

Where are these advanced arguments that warrant belief? Presumably, one would be able to understand why individual theists believe what they believe and can possibly get reasons from them. If one were to say, "you need to handle some 'serious theology'" and then not note that the 'serious theology' is (by actually stating the argument instead of pointing to a book), this seems tremendously problematic. The theist seems, at this point, to admit that he/she does believe for the reason mentioned in the 'serious theology' and instead may be admitting that he/she believes based on a weak reason.

Many of my blog posts are actually the results of conversations I have with theists and atheists. After conversations with some theists, I author blog posts discussing the arguments...and naturally 'cover' that which I encounter. I can only answer to that which is given to me and what I've been given so far is quite lackluster. This elusive 'serious theology,' apparently, is not commonplace and not provided by those who believe in gods. I can go hunting for some of this 'serious theology,' but what I have seen so far wasn't very interesting.

I also tackle what some might say are 'simplistic arguments' because many give these are reasons why they belief or otherwise state these reasons when asked why they believe.

I have also attended a speech given by a theologian named John Haught in order to interact with 'serious theology' (ironically he is a critic of the "new atheists"). Haught argued that "God likes drama;" evolution and our universe, Haught argued, is one big "cosmic story" that God authored and if the universe were perfect, there would be no "drama" and no "story" (or at least the story that we have now, to be charitable). He also argued that people make Christianity more complex that it need be because the two main points are God's love for the world and incomprehensible mystery (although, apparently, Haught believes that "God loves drama").

Haught's arguments are deeply problematic and do not suggest any sort of all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing God exists. If "drama" is so important, I would wager that an omni-god can create the "drama" without so much destruction in the universe. This "drama" also is not consistent with an omni-god. If anything, it seems that Haught is applying post-hoc reasoning to 'save' his 'god theory' by asserting trying to reconcile the current state and history of the universe with an omni-god by putting "drama" up on some pedestal. My full critique of Haught's 'serious theology' can be found here.

I am also the product of a Catholic education (as far as Catechism is concerned) in my younger years, have attended church on a regular basis, took theology courses at college, attended various religious discussions at college, and interacted with many believers. I have not seen this 'serious theology' or any argument that has given me pause.

This 'serious theology' reminds me of when I encounter religious groups proselytizing in public who refuse to have discussions. Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, sometimes distribute literature in local areas. I ask them why they believe what they believe and their answers usually consist of "look at the trees, you can't explain how this world looks so designed." After a few lines like this showing that they obviously haven't considered the arguments against their positions, I often hear "our debating guy isn't here" (and the debating guy is almost never there). This 'serious theology' is quite similar to 'the debating guy' because they're both never available.

Assume, for sake of argument, that some atheists indeed do tackle 'simple theology' and make silly arguments. It simply does not follow that religious belief is warranted or that atheists attacking 'serious theology' are not out there. Critics attack Richard Dawkins, for example, for attacking a 'juvenile faith' and discount him because of this. Well, what is the sophisticated faith and why should we believe the claims?

Many atheists have different perspectives. Some may go after the common silly arguments and some, like me, may often tackle the bigger issues. Personally, I don't like discussing the Bible because I want to get at the 'meat of the arguments' by raising objections to fundamental claims made by believers by raising philosophical issues. Can I be charged with not discussing 'serious theology' when I have commented extensively on a very wide range of issues that theists commonly use? Where is this mystical 'serious theology?' Please send all inquiries to the comments section if you feel that I have not addressed something.

American Atheists: World Trade Center cross unlawful promotion of religion

I wrote a new article for Examiner.com titled "American Atheists: World Trade Center cross unlawful promotion of religion." View the article here in addition to other content and please subscribe to my Examiner.com articles by clicking subscribe!

Are my Examiner.com articles 'Anti-Catholic?'

My title for Examiner.com is "Scranton Atheism Examiner." My job is to report and publish stories that are interesting and relevant to atheists. My articles also have to have some sort of local angle to them. This is much different than my blogging in which I often, depending on the post, respond to arguments, try to persuade, or say what my opinion is. My Examiner.com position is very similar to that of a reporter for a local newspaper. Like me, local newspaper reporters simply report. When I publish my Examiner.com articles, I do my best to be as objective as possible and instead of giving my opinion on matters, I report and interview other people in order to obtain their opinions.

I've been extremely charitable in previous articles, especially my interview with Michael Voris of RealCatholicTV fame and the "Catholic Government" and "Angry Atheists" videos for which most atheists know him. While I disagreed with almost everything Michael Voris said in my interview, I continued doing the interview and reported what he said without arguing with him, reporting why he was wrong, etc. It was quite the lofty task, but I was able to do my job. Instead, or in addition to my article, I deliberately saved my criticism for a separate blog post.

Any commentary I add to articles, such as in my first article, "Priestly abuse: The Diocese of Scranton and beyond," is quite uncontroversial. In one of my most popular articles, "Atheists to protest Harrisburg mayor Linda Thompson," I left my 'strong opinions' about separation of church and state out of the article and pulled in outside opinion while again providing very uncontroversial commentary such as noting that Thompson should focus on her job responsibilities instead of acting like a preacher.

I linked one of my articles on the wall of a former co-worker of mine who lists herself as a Roman Catholic on Facebook. We worked together and both held the unique positions of Writing Center Tutors in which we would edit papers of students who would seek help. During some downtime at work, she and other co-workers would discuss everything from religion, politics, and college life. Although this former co-worker would not defend her positions after making very problematic claims (another word for an unhealthy diet is a vegetarian diet) and deflecting criticism about her problematic 'pro-gun' claims, I wouldn't think that linking an article on her wall would be an issue.

Since we were both English majors or minors of some flavor, I supposed that my linking of an article that I wrote on her wall would cause no problems; a former co-worker of mine would be able to see my work and hopefully be happy that I got a writing position. I was, of course, very wrong because she commented on my link seconds after I linked it saying, "Hey Justin. Would you mind not posting anymore anti-catholic articles on my wall? I don't post anti-atheist stuff on yours."

The article that I linked titled, "Amidst sexual abuse scandal in Philadelphia, Bishop Bambera praises Rigali" mainly recounts recent and ongoing events surrounding the sexual abuse scandal in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. Reporting of events in an objective manner should not be considered "anti-catholic" like the commented claimed. If this were the case, every reporter who covers any sexual abuse within the Catholic Church (or at least in the Archdiocese) would be considered "anti-Catholic," but this is ludicrous because many of these reporters are themselves Catholic, "pro-Catholic," or neutral toward the events being reported. Just because an "anti-Catholic" person happens to report does not mean that the report itself is anti-Catholic.

The problem here, I think, might be that people who see negative brute facts about their religious institutions being reported might construe this as some sort of 'attack' on the institutions themselves. It might also be the case that people can't separate the writer from the reporting or they just didn't read the article. The article I wrote regarding the sex abuse scandal is no different than what local newspaper writers publish when they report; we're simply telling you the facts, pulling in outside commentary/opinion, and are being as objective as possible.

While some other writers or reporting organizations might be very biased and intentionally so, I do my best to be objective as possible and I believe, with a careful examination of my articles, that almost every rational person should agree with this assessment. Here's a breakdown of my article on the sex abuse scandal and Bambera:

Paragraph one is an introduction to the article and a fact; Bambera had nothing negative to say about Rigali even though he is embroiled in controversy.

Paragraph two consists of public factual information with attributed sources.

Paragraph three states information from Bambera's document.

Paragraph four is more reporting of public information and stating that the new replacement for Rigali is similar to Martino (that's also a fact with attributed sources.)

Paragraph five is a slight bit of commentary from me (which is quite uncontroversial, too) and statements of fact from SNAP with attributed sources.

Paragraph six states that the Diocese of Scranton is doing little about abuse (quite uncontroversial) and Bambera's recent document barely addresses it (fact, attributed).

Paragraph seven: I tried to interview Genello, but he didn't respond.

Paragraph eight: Comments from an NEPA Freethought member and commentary that is also quite uncontroversial.

While I try to take nothing to heart and disregard criticism that comes from people who aren't being rational about a specific topic are otherwise are ignorant, claiming that my article was "anti-catholic," besides being very wrong and misinformed, boarders on the line of very offensive. I intentionally made sure to do my best to be objective as possible and report and someone is basically coming out saying that I am not acting like a reporter.

After the initial comment of my article being "anti-catholic," the commenter's husband make what might even be a more ridiculous comment saying "Well, examiner does pay by the page view" that perhaps is insinuating that I'm merely linking my article just to get pageviews/money. This comment, also, is one that I take offense to. Money is not the goal of my writing and is not a top priority of mine. This blog, for example, is quite active and generates zero revenue for me. This blog is merely a personal page that I've been maintaining for about two years. When I applied for the Examiner.com position, my first thoughts included expanding my audience, being able to write for a more professional format, being able to write in a different manner, etc.

After giving my paragraph-by-paragraph breakdown and defending myself, the person's husband commented by saying "tl;dr" in a very immature and dismissive fashion. If someone is going to levy absurd claims that warrant long responses, long responses will be given...and they weren't even that long, anyway. Typing "tl;dr" in response to something someone else wrote, after levying absurd claims amounts to simply not answering any of the arguments and perhaps shows that you have no counter-argument or otherwise won't defend your position.

Next, the original commenter wrote, "Justin, I consider you a friend, but I would like for that to consist of more than your atheist evangelicalism." This comment immediately revealed a tremendous lack of understanding and perhaps is even worse than the "anti-catholic" comment...and showed that the commenter either totally ignored what I had to write in the thread of willfully ignored my counter-argument. How in the world is reporting about the sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic Church atheist evangelism [some might jest that this is a 'good argument' against Catholicism or otherwise that the church is good PR for atheists, but I digress]? What, also, is atheist evangelicalism?

One who understands what an atheist and what evangelism is should conclude that the terms, when put together, are incoherent (unless, of course, someone is joking such as Sam Singleton). One who talks about "atheist evangelicalism" shows that he/she has no idea what he/she is talking about. An atheist is one who lacks belief in any gods: nothing less, nothing more. How can one spread a lack of belief? Either way, my article should not be considered to be any sort of evangelism. When I noted this, the response was something akin to "spreading a belief to someone who doesn't believe can be called evangelism." This definition is far too general and would make all teachers evangelists, but this clearly is not the case.

Instead of jumping to conclusions and thinking that reporting of brute facts about the religious organizations you cherish or the people you defend are somehow "anti-catholic," time should be taken to evaluate the claims being made, verify that the cited attributions are accurate and fair, and also remaining open while you are reading. No matter what a person believes, it is very possible for someone to write an objective article and report.

"I used to be an atheist just like you"

Fellow atheists, in discussions with theists, have probably heard a theist, at some point, saying "I used to be an atheist just like you." This 'move' is quite common in discussions I have with Christians and very recently occurred twice from a born-again Christian who started believing in God after he supposedly got out of a coma following a car accident and here: from an organizer of a local Michael Voris speech. Atheists often accuse Christians of the No True Scotsman fallacy (and rightly so) when they try to claim that a person isn't a 'true Christian' because they hold differing beliefs or committed a heinous act. Can the No True Scotsman fallacy happen the other way around when atheists say something like "You couldn't have been an atheist and then converted to Christianity?" While people who used to be atheists convert to Christianity, an atheist 'like me' should never convert to Christianity as a result of a bad argument.

To say someone is an atheist is only to say that the person does not believe in any gods. Atheism does not guarantee that a person is properly skeptical (as opposed to not applying skepticism globally as in the case of 9/11 truthers, believers in ghosts, conspiracy theorists, etc. who are atheists) and it does guarantee that an atheist really understands why arguments for gods fail or otherwise is able to pose counter-arguments. There are, of course, many atheists who never even really thought about belief in gods. There are also atheists who I would wager are atheists for the wrong reasons (watch the Zeitgeist movie, for example, and you'll understand). There are also atheists who were raised in a secular household without religion. Not all atheists are "like me" in that they can understand arguments for gods and show why they are flawed; my route to atheism was a philosophical one and philosophy greatly informs all of my work. Joe Blow Atheist might not believe in any gods because he sees corruption within the church, but this is not a stellar reason to lack belief in any gods; a god might exist, but its followers might just be disobedient, for example.

When Christians say that they were atheists just like me and then believe as a result of an argument from ignorance (I got in a car accident and survived, you can't explain that) or another weak reason, their critical thinking credentials are very questionable. Atheists like me recognize a bad argument for what it is and should never accept an argument from ignorance as a reason to believe in God. The Christians also aren't just like me because they haven't maintained a personal blog dealing with atheism, they haven't had 'training' in critical thinking and philosophy in the same way that I did in college, they haven't watched hundreds of debates and read many books dealing with skepticism, belief in god, and critical thinking. All of us simply come from different life situations and have very different backgrounds.

Christians see people like Lee Strobel who say "I used to be an atheist" and think that this somehow makes his arguments stronger, but this in no way does. It does not matter who is making the argument or what past beliefs a person had, but rather the arguments, evidence, and reasoning matters. For all (of most) of the 'I used to be atheists,' we can find people like myself who used to be Christians. This doesn't suddenly make our arguments stronger. Sure, we might be able to better understand the beliefs or why people believe because we were former believers or non-believers, but the arguments, evidence, and reason needs to be under scrutiny.

When Christians claim that they used to be atheists and then levy very poor arguments to support their positions, the 'atheists like me' should notice several red flags. If you were 'just like me' or even an atheist who can properly understand and defend his/her stances, you -- one would hope -- would never levy such bad arguments. There might be some exceptions including failures in critical thinking or some emotional reasons (although atheists 'like me' should still recognize bad arguments), but some exceptions ought not account for everyone. Can you really claim to be an atheist 'like me' and then spout bad arguments that are seen by atheists as tremendously fallacious? I know that my readers, if I posted why I suddenly came to believe in God, would eviscerate my arguments if they were bad ones.

The standard array of arguments for God are profoundly fallacious and have failed time and time again. These arguments have been taken apart again and again and apologists seem to neglect recognizing this. For me to believe in any gods, there needs to be some new argument, reason, and evidence - not some of the same old stuff. My objections need to be addressed, also. I can't just go back.

I understand why arguments for God fail and have several counter-arguments against belief in gods. Nothing should make me go back to belief on the basis of a really bad reason that, right now, I can recognize as being very bad. As I previously stated, I would believe if good argument, reason, and evidence were presented, but this has not been done. To you former atheists: you weren't just like me because, if you were, you wouldn't accept bad arguments as reason to believe and you would not ignore what the atheists are saying about the arguments.

Addendum to my Michael Voris Interview

Recently, I wrote an article for Examiner.com based on my interview with Michael Voris whom I briefly met in Wilkes-Barre after he gave a speech. I also got a picture with him. Voris is, hands down, my 'favorite Catholic' because he is very entertaining, consistent, and is a great look into what fundamental Christianity is like. In my Examiner.com article, I did not intend to counter Voris' arguments and only wanted to report. I was also quite limited in text. This blog post will be a refutation of Voris' arguments.

Regarding Voris' speech at Marywood University, I'm in agreement with Voris. The local diocese agreed to host Voris, so he bought a plane ticket and scheduled to fly on a certain date at a certain time. Before reserving speakers and before said speakers make plans to fly, the diocese should first do a quick background check on their speakers. In the case of Voris, it's quite easy to find his YouTube channel. The Diocese thought that he was "too insensitive" to people of other faiths...perhaps admitting that Voris is 'more Catholic' than members of the diocese. If you are a Catholic who believes that everything the Church says is true, you should not hesitate to say that those of other faiths and no faiths are wrong...and that's exactly what Voris does. While this exclusivist stance (my religion is right and all the others are wrong) may be morally repugnant and reek of absolute certainty, it is intellectually honest.

I think the best solution for the diocese would have been inviting Voris and then having a representative on-site to give a rebuttal after his speech. Voris certainly would have accepted this and the diocese could have not screwed him out of a plane ticket. Voris and those in the diocese both profess to be Catholic...and Voris really represents the Catholic viewpoint (despite some of his political opinions, evolution denial, etc). If they disagree with him, the way that they should have gone about disagreement was to have a rebuttal right after his speech.

In my article, Voris repeats the all-to-often "atheists can't make sense of morality if they don't believe in God." This argument is a really bad one that is quite insulting. It's quite obvious that atheists, just like everyone else, can be moral individuals (and are). When people raise this objection to atheists, I typically ask them, "If you suddenly came to the conclusion that there is no good reason to believe in God, would you go out and commit genocide?" I've never heard one person say yes. It's clear, at least to me, that morality does not stem from belief in God; whether or not one believes in God is irrelevant to the question of morality. People are moral individuals mainly because they have empathy, morality is an evolutionary product, people want to see others prosper, people want to avoid punishment, etc.

We can talk of morality in a contingent sense in which morality only makes sense because sentient, conscious creatures exist. We realize, since others have the capacity to feel pain, be self-aware, experience deep emotions, etc, that we have moral obligations to others. When we self-reflect, we notice that other creatures have similar needs and wants as we do including safety, love, etc. Confucius, before Jesus, noted what should be the conclusion of these realizations: "One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated."

Theists also have significant problems when they appeal to God as a lawgiver or some sort of moral standard to look up to. One of the biggest problems is known as the Euthyphro Dilemma which came from the writings of Plato. The problem is roughly this, updated to modern contexts: "Does God endorse that which is good or is that which is good good because God endorses it?" If God endorses that which is good, we need not appeal to God because there is some other standard by which the goodness is judged. If moral standards are good because God endorses them, then we have a "might makes right" problem and morality can be arbitrary; God can endorse any action such as torturing babies for the fun of it and because he would endorse it, the action would be good. Of course, torturing babies for the fun of it is not good, so this option can't work.

A theist might appeal to God's nature by saying "God's nature is good" or "God would never endorse evil actions," but this causes more problems. The "God's nature" objection delves deeper into the problem. By what standard is God's nature good? Is God's nature good because God endorses it or is God's nature good because God's nature endorses that which is good? For every "x" that a theist uses to answer the dilemma, they delve deeper into the problem. If a theist says that God would never endorse evil actions, this means that there is some outside standard to God that determines whether or not an action is evil (and thus God would not need to be part of the moral equation). This might also be problematic with God's omnipotence, but that's only a minor detail here.

Morality is a product of evolution and common sense. We realize that we need to work together and be nice to others on a very basic level in order for society to exist and to survive. We didn't need the ten commandments or the proverbial Mount Sinai to understand that murder and perjury are wrong. Morality is also a product of experience and socialization. We understand, through life experience, that we ought to behave in certain ways and not behave in certain ways in order to flourish. For more on the moral argument for God's existence, the Euthyphro Dilemma, and why people behave poorly, please click on the hyperlinks.

Responding to Voris, we can object to the actions of Hitler and the Nazis because we can understand why genocide is horrendous for several obvious reasons. We don't need a belief in God or some divine lawgiver to understand why genocide is wrong. We, as empathetic individuals, can understand that the Holocaust was wrong because innocent people are being deprived of basic human rights, murdered, tortured, forced to work in prison camps, etc. Only a psychopath or an extreme anti-Semite would believe that Hitler was justified in killing millions of people...and their 'opinions' do not matter in the moral conversations.

Voris poses several objections to atheists such as "they can't explain where the universe came from or explain love." Both of these objections are profoundly fallacious; they are arguments from ignorance and burden-shifting. The burden of proof is on the theist to demonstrate God, not the atheist. If the atheist can't answer a question posed by a theist, this doesn't suddenly justify belief in God or make these position/argument justified.

This sort of thinking is similar to what 9/11 conspiracy theorists and holocaust revisionists employ. If a person can't explain how a building would fall in a certain matter, the 'truther' thinks, then belief in a conspiracy is justified. The revisionists say, "No holes, no Holocaust" and find several 'problems' in the 'official explanations' of the Holocaust and because of this, they think that their arguments are justified, but this is not how argumentation works.

This is also a false dichotomy - one in which if you can't answer my objections, my side suddenly is justified. This sort of thinking also happens in the evolution/intelligent design 'debates.' The ID proponent says, "Look at blood clotting. You can't explain that." They think, just because the evolution proponent can't answer a question, intelligent design is suddenly justified. All that this means, though is "I can't explain one problem" and does not immediately defeat a position. Intelligent design, in this case, would only be justified in the ID proponent can make a case for why their position is the correct one.

Bill O' Reilly tried this sort of thinking in a recent discussion with David Silverman when he said, "Tides go in, tides go out. You can't explain that." O'Reilly thinks that just because an atheist can't explain the tides or, in a later video, "how the moon got there," that belief in God is justified. Voris is doing the same exact thing. You can't explain 'x' does not entail that an opposing position is automatically defeated.

Throughout history, we did not know how to explain phenomena such as thunder, earthquakes, disease, and seizures. In times past, people used gods to explain all of these, but we have now found naturalistic explanations and no longer need to assert God to explain what we previously did not understand. While we might not be able to understand "where the universe came from," this doesn't mean that we can justifiably say "God did it." Which God did it, anyway? How do we know the Christian god did it? Why couldn't some naturalistic explanation account for it? If we don't know how something works, we should be honest and say "I don't know" instead of jumping to supernatural conclusions. Why should we ever go from "I don't know" to "God did it?" This strategy, from theists, is often called "God of the gaps." Theists posit God into areas that are currently unexplained, but over time, God gets 'smaller and smaller' as new information is found.

"You can't explain love" is fallacious for the reasons I detailed above...and is even more silly. We actually can explain love...and it is a product of the brain. We're attracted to certain individuals and certain neurotransmitters in the brain emit hormones such as oxytocin. Attraction also is completely plausible within an evolutionary framework. While we can have sex with people we hate and don't need love for reproduction, this doesn't entail that love makes no sense within an evolutionary framework. Regardless, even if we can't make sense of love, this doesn't entail that God exists or that atheists are unjustified in their positions.

Voris believes that evolution is treated almost as dogma in the scientific community. "Dogma" is not a word that makes sense within the scientific community because theories are constantly put to the test and could be falsified when profound objections are levied. Scientists and non-scientists accept evolution because of the tremendous amount of evidence supporting it including be not limited to shared DNA, speciation, the fossil record, vestigial organs, etc. The idea that we descended from a common ancestor is a fact, not a dogma. Year by year, contrary to what Voris says, evolution becomes more and more justified. In the time of Darwin, sufficient evidence existed to substantiate evolution, but now -- with the fossil record, DNA, and answers to questions of 'complexity' -- the evidence for evolution is stronger and stronger. I'd like to know about the brilliant minds who shot holes through evolution...

Voris says, "How can you make life out of slamming rocks together" and immediately shows his ignorance of evolution. No scientists say that life emerged from "slamming rocks together." Voris conflates abiogenesis, the field in which life emerging from non-life is explored, with evolution. Abiogenesis and evolution are two separate disciplines...and just because we might not be able to explain how life came from non-life does not entail that belief in evolution is unjustified or belief in God is justified.

Voris' comments on homosexuality are completely unjustified. His statements endorsing 'curing homosexuality' are not endorsed by any credible psychologist or psychology association. People aren't gay because "something got off the rails somewhere," but rather because they were born that way. Sexual orientation is not a matter of choice or a product of bad life experiences.

I could have written objections to Voris' arguments in my Examiner.com article, but my intent was to report, not to raise objections to Voris. My article was, in no way, an endorsement of Voris. Many people understood that, but 'casual viewers' who didn't know me were unaware of this. Sorry for that! This post could have been much longer, but I simply wanted to get the basic objections out there.

Michael Voris' message to atheists: "You're wrong"

I wrote a new article for Examiner.com titled "Michael Voris' message to atheists: You're wrong." Check it out here along with my other content!

Please subscribe to me on Examiner.com by clicking the "subscribe" button next to my name on Examiner.com articles.

Conversation with a Born Again Christian and Science Denial

Today, I had an unexpected and interesting conversation with an energy consultant at a flea market type venue. After some discussion in which I intended to be skeptical of his claims, he announced that he was a born again Christian after I told him that I work for Examiner.com as the Scranton Atheism Examiner.

He asked me if I believe that "everything came from nothing" and I called out the obvious false dichotomy that is typically posited with this assertion. I told him that natural processes can account for the universe after he asked me, "Well, who created the universe then" and "how did the universe get here, who put it here." He started to talk about the "complexity"of the human eye and I talked to him about how the eye doesn't seem to be designed at all. I called out his argument from ignorance soon after be asked me if I watched the Expelled movie with Ben Stein (lol) regarding intelligent design. Even if it were the case that we couldn't explain how the eye was formed, this doesn't entail that we can rationally posit God as an answer (the typical God of the gaps argument).

He then told me that I have "faith" in science and that it takes more faith to be an atheist than to believe in God. I addressed this points rather quickly be saying that neither of us are evolutionary biologists and I simply defer to the experts on matters best left to experts. It's not faith to accept the conclusions of people who are properly trained to evaluate and interpret the data. One of the best features of the scientific method is peer review, the process by which scientists review others' findings. Once a paper would go through a peer review process, we have good reason to accept this data as the best fitting explanation...and especially after a meta-analysis and consensus amongst scientists. Still, the man insisted that this was "faith" and I simply repeated and reinforced my points.

I asked him if he took medicine and if he called taking medicine and vaccines a faith-based position. He said that he believes in the efficacy of medicine. I asked him why...and never really got an answer. One of the major logical fallacies going on with the man was special pleading; he accepts some conclusions from scientists, but dismisses others even though the evidence yields a conclusion in the same manner. Why defer to the experts on matters of medicine and vaccines and then not accept what experts have to say on the matter of evolution?

The idea of "it takes more faith to be an atheist" is nonsense because atheism isn't a faith position, it's simply the lack of belief in any gods. I don't have faith when I don't believe something exists; I come to a conclusion based on the most reasonable an unbiased survey of the evidence. All of the arguments from believers, I have reasoned, are insufficient to establish any good reason to believe in any gods.

He then got into the topic of global warming...a topic which I really have not studied much, but am justified in deferring to scientific consensus on (still not faith). He mentioned that all of the funding for scientists who believe in global warming is from the government and special interest groups who have a vested interest in legislating policy that accords with belief in global warming. This assertion is very dubious to begin with and misses the point of the scientific process; no matter who funds something, the conclusion that the data yields will shine through. While there may be conflicts of interest and "creaming the data," a process of peer review, independent researchers who are publishing peer-reviewed material, and the data itself will yield a conclusion. The beauty of critical thinking skills, I have discovered, is that once you can argue one topic really well and understand logical fallacies, you note huge problems in arguments about topics that you aren't well-informed about...and this was the case here with global warming.

Saying "oh, this is funded, so I can't accept it" is profoundly ad-hoc and is more special pleading. When this man sees data he presumably doesn't like, he doesn't question the data, but rather gives an "excuse" to save his hypothesis of global warming isn't happening. Surely, he accepts data that is funded by the government and special interest groups for other matters, right? Why, then, deny global warming and not everything else that is funded?

Another argument he tried was that there are two sides to the debate and experts can often disagree. In the case of global warming, there is no real debate because there is scientific consensus. There may, of course, be disagreements regarding the rate of global warming, the impact of global warming, and what policies we should put in place (notice, this is politics, not science, but perhaps is scientifically-informed politics), but this does not entail that global warming is not happening. Two sides to a debate doesn't automatically make a position valid, either.

Just because certain politicial groups may support 'global warming legislation' or 'push' the fact that global warming is happening or if it is the case (and it is) that some people are 'making money off global warming' does not entail that there is some sort of conspiracy or flawed scientific methodology. This is a causal fallacy; just because one thing happens does not entail that it is linked to the other...and it's also a non-sequitur (so what if people are making money? This doesn't entail that global warming is not happening). What's happening here is very similar to what '9-11 Truthers' are doing when they say things like "Oh, look! People sold stocks before 9-11, so they must have known about it and were in on a conspiracy." Just because people profit off of something, whether intentionally or not, does not entail a conspiracy.

When I asked him why he believes what he believes in the matter of God's existence, he actually pulled Pascal's Wager by saying "Well, if you're wrong, you're going to Hell and if I'm wrong, I lose nothing." I quickly demolished this horrid argument and he moved on to say that he "feels" that belief in God is justified. (More about my evaluation of Pascal's Wager is here.)

I asked him why feeling something is true makes it so and I was given a very long anecdotal story previously that he appealed to. His son was in a coma and had very low chances of living. Eventually, he recovered after doctors told the parents to 'pull the plug.' Therefore, he believes in God and thinks that this was a wake-up call. Anecdotal stories are really problematic (I can't really know the details or if it even happened), but for the sake of argument, let's assume that it is true.

There are many problems. First, the doctors saved the person, not God. If you take the doctors out of the equation, there would be no surviving. Second, what kind of all-powerful and all-knowing god would put someone through a coma to send a 'wake-up call?' Surely, since he is all-powerful and all-knowing, according to believers, he could have revealed himself in some other manner with ease. Third, even if 'something happened' that was not the work of the doctors or a naturalistic recovery, why assume that it is the Christian god or even any god? It's the old argument from ignorance again: I don't know, therefore God. Extraordinary situations are simply not indicative of miracles!

It doesn't take faith to be an atheist and we don't need to take claims on faith. We can, after a reasonable appraisal of the evidence, come to justified conclusions without taking a 'leap of faith.' While we may be wrong about some things, this doesn't mean that we had a faith-based position or that our reasoning process was wrong to begin with. Tomorrow, for example, we can discover that this world was really an illusion and 'we' were brains in a vat. Should we be blameworthy for believing that the world was not an illusion? No. Was believing that the world was real a faith-based claim? No.

The only real candidate for faith in my life is induction (the belief that the future will resemble the past). Induction, though, as I explain in my capstone philosophy paper, which also talks about why I don't have faith in many claims, is necessary for being a functioning human being and, although there are problems with question-begging, is a forced option that everyone must live by (or else they'd probably end up dead, disfigured, or in a mental institution). This is much different than the faith of a religious believer.