Last Sunday there came a knocking at my door, and I opened it to find two gentlemen on my doorstep. They were perfectly polite, introduced themselves, and explained they were going door to door trying to get people to read the Bible. I said , “No thanks. I’m an atheist.” They were unfazed, said thank you, and went on their way. In hindsight, I wish I had engaged these fellows in a discussion of why, exactly, they wanted other people to read the Bible, but I sort of panicked.
Later that day a friend and I were discussing my fondness for the works of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. He stated that he just didn’t agree with anyone who insisted they were the only ones who were right. I had to agree, but I went on to argue that that was the beauty of modern atheism: We don’t claim to be “right” about everything—just the stuff for which we have evidence. For example, we have hard, empirical evidence that this planet is approximately 4.5 billion years old. We have no evidence to indicate that it is only 6,000 years old—and no, adding up a bunch of references in a translation of a translation of a two-thousand-year-old storybook does not count as evidence. The only rational thing to do, therefore, is to lean toward the larger number.
In the few discussions I’ve had with people regarding atheism, a popular response has been that there are so many things science cannot explain, God must exist to fill in the blanks. This is called, in atheist circles, the “God-In-the-Gaps” argument. My response is pretty much the textbook answer: The gaps are shrinking with each new scientific discovery, things we attributed to God a thousand, or even a hundred years ago now have natural explanations, blah blah blah. Does that mean there is no such thing as God? No, because you cannot prove a negative. But it makes God’s existence less and less likely with each new breakthrough. I thought of an analogy that I’m gonna whip out next time I hear that argument. Here goes:
Think of our exploration of the universe as the easiest quiz ever devised: Multiple-choice, open book, no time limit, and you’re only graded on the questions for which you give a definite answer. Now, whenever you hit a question for which you do not know the answer, you could take the rational route and either look it up or leave the question blank so you could come back to it later. Or you can take the faith-based route, and just fill in D) “None of the above” for each question you don’t know the answer to. At the end of the test, who will get the better grade? Who will have learned more from the experience?
Oh snap, that’s a lovely analogy.
Agreed. Lovely analogy.
I was driving down a very snowy dirt road after a blizzard. The snow was almost seven inches high on the road and an older man, ill dressed for the weather, was lumbering along the side of the road clearly in a hurry.
I stopped the car and rolled down my window and asked he had experienced motor trouble…did he need a lift?
He explained that he had injured his knee and his doctor told him he needed to exercise it every day, no matter what. So he was merely out running.
“Aha! Okay…sure you don’t need a lift?”
“Nope. Thanks!” said the man…then he said “Hey! Praise God, eh?” I felt a little odd…as though his assumption was that I must know the secret handshake since I did something decent. I just smiled and waved as I closed the window. He gave me sort of an odd look, turned and continued exercising his knee in shin-deep snow.
Okay I will agree that a guy in a sheet had nothing to do with the creation of life as we know it.
Here is the point that keeps me on the agnostic side of things.
Science and technology consistently disprove the accuracy of writings made by crazy people (yeah I said it CRAZY PEOPLE). But nobody has explained to me (at least not while I was aware) a plausible explanation on how complex organisms intertwining with each other over time have led us from nothing to something.
I believe there was a beginning, no idea what happened but none the less…
Admittedly I have done zero credible research (lab coats were out of stock that week) to prove anything but I have trouble accepting that the universe just happened. I like the idea that someone placed our universe around a cats neck as jewelry(MIB). I personally am compelled by the mystery and not the spectacle of life. Is that faith? Im not really sure.
Religon is too convienient of an answer for people who have no ability to think for themselves. But that lack of responsible leadership doesnt make me think that a long time ago in a galaxy far far away someone went “EUREKA” and thus we were born.
I like the science fiction of it i guess. NOT L RON HUBBARD DAMMIT!!!
With regard to your test though who would grade it I wonder? Remember we all have our own personal dictionary of what important things mean to us. Who would be the referee’s of that match? Especially without instant replay…..
But on the topic of holding those guys hostage while we took turns reasoning logic and sensible arguements at them would have been fun.
However its a crime to hold people aginst thier will and I am sure they would want to leave….
GO BEARS!
“But nobody has explained to me (at least not while I was aware) a plausible explanation on how complex organisms intertwining with each other over time have led us from nothing to something.”
Darwin’s theory of evolution is the explanation, and a rather elegant one. Of course, it is a complex enough process that he had to write a whole book on it, and scientists have spent over a century now refining and expanding on Darwin’s original ideas.
Of course, evolution does not refute the possibility of a divine creator. Evolution has nothing to do with where we came from; it is just the process by which we got from wherever we started to where we are now. There are a number of ideas being kicked around regarding the origins of life on this planet and in the universe. My problem with the ideas that involve a creator is that, while pretty and fun in a Tolkien sort of way, there is no actual evidence in support of such ideas.
As for who would grade the test: Good point. The analogy requires some sort of teacher-character, and too many people would equate that with God. And that’s not what I want at all. But in reality, I guess we would be graded by future generations. We hand down the questions we’ve answered, and they check and re-check our results while moving on to the questions we were unable to answer — much as we do today with the breakthroughs of previous generations.
And indeed, let us all Bear Down.
Am an agnostic simply because I don’t much care about religion…and the concept that the physical universe has Always Been seems about as likely as a Divine Critter that willed the physical universe. There’s just no way for us to know beyond what ancient light tells us.
On the smaller scale, though, evolution of species, I’m stoutly convinced of evolutions as an explanation of our specific genesis.
Most folks don’t have a problem with evolution in terms of describing why mosquitos become resistant to pesticides year after year. Those who survive the pesticide reproduce and make babies that are resistant. Simple.
Where folks seem to have trouble with evolution is when they consider Humans to be the Inevitable Conclusion to evolution. No WAY could evolution conspire to create us. And I’m sure we all agree with that. When micro-organisms were zipping about the ocean, we were an unimaginably unlikely possibility. But the same statement goes for any other larger organism.
When one considers that humans are simply yet another waypoint in a meandering but brutal race for resources…we’re not a completely unlikely scenario.
I think this is the ultimate hangup with evolution. We’re so handy in our environment…so wonderfully adapted to what we do, we feel in our guts that we are an end-point. A conclusion. Moreso from a religious standpoint, where religion is born from human brains to serve human thoughts and doubts. When one considers humans as the natural orgasm of creation…then evolution of our species is wildly unlikely.
Also, I find the limitlessness of science to be so wonderful and inspiring that I don’t have a God-shaped hole in my life. The universe and it’s incredible mysteries are as badass and comforting as an “answer” would be.