OJBs Web Site: Blog Page

Note: You are currently viewing my old web site. There is a new version with most of this content at OJB.NZ.
The new site is being updated, uses modern techniques, has higher quality media, and has a mobile-friendly version.
This old site will stay on-line for a while, but maybe not indefinitely. Please update your bookmarks. Thanks.

Add a Comment (Go Back to OJB's Blog Search Page)

Atheism Debunked

Entry 2223, on 2022-06-15 at 20:47:09 (Rating 3, Religion)

I like to read and view a variety of opinions from people with different political, philosophical, and even theological perspectives. When people see me reading material from right-wing commentators they sometimes assume that I'm some sort of far-right nutter, but that isn't true at all. I simply want a perspective which differs from the overwhelmingly left-oriented material from most mainstream media.

One of the commentators I find quite well informed, and fairly rational, from the right is Ben Shapiro. I agree with a lot of his points, especially those which criticise the more insane aspects of leftist and politically correct dogma, but there are other opinions of his I don't think are as reasonable. The same applies to Jordan Peterson, and other controversial figures from many parts of the political spectrum.

In fact, the area where I most disagree with conservative commentators is religion. Many of these people are overtly religious, and others have unusual perspectives about religion which I really just can't make much sense of (Peterson is the main offender in this).

I listen to Ben Shapiro's podcast, "Debunked", and I think it lives up to its name in many cases. Shapiro admits he approaches these subjects from a conservative viewpoint, so I'm not expecting a balanced approach, but I get the other perspectives elsewhere. Unfortunately, there was one episode recently which I thought was poorly argued, and its subject was debunking atheism!

Here are some of Shapiro's (who is a conservative, traditional Jew) opinions on religion, and my reaction to them...

Point: In his introduction, he claims that there is no way to blame people who don't believe in god if they experienced personal pain which they might have expected a god to prevent.

Reaction: This is very condescending, really. Many religions do claim that their god will help with personal and other problems, and they are encouraged to pray for help for themselves and others. When this fails, it's OK to question the nature or even existence of god.

Point: He claims that expecting to understanding the mind of god is unreasonable, and if we did, we would be like gods ourselves.

Reaction: This is just a bit too convenient for me. Many religious people make claims about the nature of a particular god, and those seem to contradict reality. If we are going to take the concept seriously we need to expect top have some level of understanding, although it would never be complete.

Point: He says we are right to feel angry, and struggle is part of religion, and it is more fulfilling being part of a religion, than thinking universe has no purpose.

Reaction: What is more fulfilling varies from one person to another. I would feel very unfulfilled if I took a religion seriously, because I just don't think that way. I am perfectly happy taking a scientific perspective instead. It's better to know half the truth, than all of the fantasies.

Point: According to atheists, god is unnecessary, and the universe just is, and we just are, and there is no reason to support the existence of a creator or higher power.

Reaction: While I would say that different types of atheists have different views on this, it is not a bad summary of the more common opinions. That is exactly what I think: we can explain what we see better without a god, so why invent one?

Point: Atheism is more than agnosticism. Agnostics think it is impossible to know if a god exists. You can be religious and also be agnostic. Atheism is specifically against god.

Reaction: These two words are used quite loosely. I call myself an atheist, but I don't claim to know for sure there is not god, and I am not "against" god. How could I be against something that I think doesn't exist?

Point: He disagrees with the often made point that religion corrupts; for good people to do wicked things takes religion.

Reaction: Religion is undeniably one reason that some good people do bad things, but there are others as well, such as political ideologies. So the statement is over-simple, but still contains some truth.

Point: He claims that all of the following atheistic points are untrue: religion blinds people of the truth around them; science opposes the idea of a creator; faith and reason can't be reconciled.

Reaction: Again, I think there is an element of truth in all of these, so I disagree that they are all false. In particular the last one is highly suspect, because many religions place a high value on faith but science specifically rejects it. I know many religious people claim they believe through applying rational arguments and logic, but I think that is a very superficial application of those principles, and is a justification for underlying faith in the vast majority of cases.

Point: All objective truth claims, which are independent of human minds, must originate elsewhere, and this must be the mind of a god.

Reaction: This is a difficult claim to evaluate, because it is just so vague. It is very difficult to understand what the ultimate source of the laws of physics might be, but by saying they come from a god we are really no better off than saying they originate as an inherent property of physical reality. Maybe if he told us what sort of god he had in mind, it might be easier to comment.

Point: According to evolution our thinking should be linked to what is beneficial to enhance survival. Shapiro claims it isn't. For example, he asks what is the evolutionary purpose of knowing the truth that 2+2=4?

Reaction: Understanding basic maths creates a clear evolutionary advantage. And the more advanced math we use today is best explained as an emergent property of a brain specialised in general reasoning. Evolution could provide a big, general purpose brain to aid in survival, and a few hundred thousand years later someone might use that ability for unique reasons.

Point: Morality claims make no sense without a god. What justification is there in believing that humans have inherent worth? Non-religious philosophies, like consequentialism make assumptions with no solid justification.

Reaction: Yeah, sure. I agree that without religion morality is subjective. There is no objective right and wrong. But just because it might be convenient for arguments like this, it cannot be used to justify believing a god exists. In the past religious morality would not match what we believe today. Religions justified slavery, seeing women as second best, engaging in war with the enemies of the god. None of these are seen as moral today. Like it or not, morality is subjective.

Point: Materialism doesn't seem to allow free will. If we have free will there must be some other process at work which is beyond the material, scientific understanding of the world.

Reaction: Free will is a tricky concept. It is hard to know whether we have it or not, and if we have it to what degree, and what it even really means. It's entirely possible to feel as if we have free will but at the deepest level we don't. Compatibilists would argue that free will is possible even in a deterministic universe, although I'm not sure I believe them.

Point: Some people say that belief in a god is illogical, and that atheists have monopoly on legitimate knowledge about the real world, but Shapiro rejects this, saying logical arguments can be made for belief in a god.

Reaction: I agree that you could make that logical argument, but you could make one for many things we now strongly believe are untrue. That is why we have empiricism in science: to discover which ideas that make sense logically are actually true in the real world. But no empirical experiment I know of supports the existence of a god.

Point: The first cause argument, first attributed to Aristotle, states that there must be an original prime cause for everything. If we follow science we inevitable get an infinite regress, but we could solve this problem by saying there is a first cause and we could call it a god.

Reaction: First, not everything has a cause. In the quantum world some processes occur with no cause. Why could the universe not originate that way? Alternatively, there is increasing support for a greater universe, or multiverse, which might be infinite in size and in time, removing the need for a cause. In addition, saying the universe needs a cause, but god doesn't, is really just another case of special pleading.

Point: Science is incomplete, and requires axioms outside system of the system. Goedel showed us this applies to certain classes of mathematical systems and can never be avoided.

Reaction: Sure, we can never trace the ultimate origin of anything, but how does god help? Is god the ultimate origin? If so, why can't a physical process or law have that same attribute? And, as I said above, evidence is beginning to increase supporting an eternal universe, either through one universe expanding, then compressing, and that cycle repeating, or through universes "splitting off" from a greater (possibly infinite) multiverse. Why is there a universe? I don't know, but why is there anything? Why is there a god (assuming there was one)?

Point: Evolution allows a guiding hand. Maybe evolution is true, but it is guided by a god.

Reaction: Well, if it is being guided by god, he sure is doing a bad job of it. Almost every species ever to exist is now extinct (by the way, this has nothing to do with global warming or microplastics; it's just an inevitable consequence of evolution) and existing species have numerous flaws where evolution has produced something which is "good enough" but far from perfect.

Point: Genetic information transmitted though cellular processes looks a lot like intelligent transmission, and information is always there because of intelligent intervention.

Reaction: Information is transmitted through natural processes all the time. If it was being transmitted through intelligence would it not be more accurate? The major driver of evolution is errors in data transmission. We don't allow these errors in intelligently controlled systems, like the internet, why would god allow them?

Point: The Big Bang looks a lot like Creation.

Reaction: No, it doesn't; there is almost no similarity at all. The basic events are different, so is the timing and order of events. Any similarity is very superficial.

Point: The fine tuning argument. If any of several basic constants, such as the strength of the force of gravity, was any different, life and maybe even the universe as a whole, would not be possible.

Reaction: To me, this is one of the more interesting arguments that religious people use. This is a genuine mystery, but throwing the supernatural in as an explanation is really just another "god of the gaps" argument. Other gaps previously filled by god have now been explained better by science. There is no reason to think this one won't be as well.

Point: Why are we conscious and what is consciousness? We have no idea, and many scientists admit this is one of the greatest mysteries.

Reaction: Well sure, I agree. What is consciousness and where does it come from? Currently, the best explanation seems to be that it is an emergent property of a brain of sufficient complexity. We can manipulate people's conscious experiences using drugs, electrical stimulation, etc, so a physical basis for it does seem to make sense.

Point: The problem of evil is often used to reject a god, but we have no right to expect to understand a god's thought processes, motivations, or actions.

Reaction: I agree that the existence of evil doesn't really tell us much about whether a god exists or not. Either he might not care about us enough to help, or maybe the bad things happening are for a greater purpose. It's really a non-issue either way.

Point: Does the fact that some religious people act badly disprove their religion? All philosophies have proponents who act badly, and this must be seen in the context of what the religion really teaches.

Reaction: Yes, there have been many bad and good things done by religious people, and many bad and good things done by people who follow other philosophies. This just seems to show that religions are no different from any other system of belief.

Final point: The biggest problem with atheism is that it has no moral framework. Any beliefs of this sort are subjective, and no absolute moral claims can be made.

Reaction: Sure, atheism is just the belief that there is no good reason to think a god exists. It makes no moral claims because that is not what it is about. It does follow from atheism that moral claims based on the alleged wishes of a god have no good basis in fact, and should be treated carefully. Given the "moral" rules of religions in the past, this seems very sensible.

Yeah, so sorry Ben, but you've got it very wrong this time. None of those arguments are particularly convincing, and you really should know how easily they can be refuted. Better luck next time!

There are no comments for this entry.

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

To add a comment: enter a name and email (both optional), type the number shown above, enter a comment, then click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.