The Plausibility of Atheism

User avatar
Jason
Posts: 379
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:28 pm

The Plausibility of Atheism

Post by Jason » Mon Oct 05, 2015 12:44 pm

I want to lay out a simple challenge to our Atheist friends here at the forum (although sadly, I think only two remain active these days). Online discussions between Atheists and Christians are often tedious because it seems that the presenter from each camp imagines their goal to be “one upping” the other. These discussions are not fun to read and prove to be a major time suck, only to reach the end and discover that no one has said anything useful.

To give a quick abstract, I was raised in a liberal, secular home. This isn’t a very sexy conversion story, but I became a Christian through reading the gospels (even secular homes have Bibles!). I remain a Christian, despite a rather cynical outlook on pretty much everything, due to some rather basic points which I find compelling. Oddly enough, Anthony Flew’s exodus from Atheism (outlined in his book, “There Is a God”) was based on nearly identical points of persuasion. In that respect, I feel a real kinship with the late philosopher.

Below I will outline some of the things which persuaded me that God is the best explanation for the world we find ourselves in. This won’t be a tit-for-tat kind of dialogue because I have no desire to “one-up” a stranger on the internet. But I’d be happy to engage with any Atheist who can point out an error in my thinking since that would be doing me a favor. Let’s keep that mutual.

If you consider these points to be naïve, I can only say that I find beauty in simplicity. While it’s fun to engage in philosophical or semantic navel-gazing, I’d rather wear an idea that offers me constant reminders of its veracity.

Origins

It strikes me that there are only two options here (let me know if there are others). Either we are products of design or accidents of nature. One of these is true. Seems pretty binary. While I have listened to some very sophisticated explanations for how order and complexity can arise out of disorder and simplicity, these theories seem very contrived to me. For a classic example: What’s the difference between the jagged edge of a mountain cliff and Mount Rushmore? Why do we know that one is the product of nature and the other the product of design? Isn’t it because we can identify a level of complexity (human faces carved in rock) which seems unlikely to have been the product of nature?

And yet, the amount of complexity within the DNA molecule far exceeds that of some heads carved on stone. While it’s possible that the coding language of biology has arisen through natural means, it seems to be an exercise in hubris to outright assume this. The complexity is so vast that it makes more sense to draw a parallel with computer code (which is obviously the product of an intelligent mind).

Of course, Atheism argues from the position of apparent design. Dawkins says of course things look designed because evolution produces things which have the appearance of design. But, he argues, we know design isn’t the correct answer because there are flaws in the so-called design. He points to the human eyeball as an example, stating that it’s not an optimal design and, therefore, it’s doubtful that some super-intelligent mind created it. It’s the blind watchmaker.

Now, I worked as a cinematographer for a decade and know a thing or two about cinema lenses and how they function. But imagine I didn’t know anything about lenses. I’m wandering through a barren desert and stumble upon this metal and glass object that had been half-buried in the sand. Without much thought, I’d know this piece (whatever it was) had been designed by someone. But what if the lens had a crack on the housing and the focus ring wasn’t aligned?

Would it be reasonable for me to assume that because the lens was damaged, it must not have been the product of design? I might conclude that its maker was a sloppy engineer, but I might just as easily conclude that the item fell and got cracked. Or perhaps I didn’t understand why the designer had to make certain compromises. The lens still works exceptionally well, despite apparent flaws. Maybe if I tried to design a lens myself, I’d understand why this engineer made those particular choices.

I’ve seen $100,000 Panavision lenses that cannot do what the human eye can do in terms of sensitivity or focal response. Not even close.

So I find these kinds of arguments to be very off-putting. DNA looks designed because nature produces things which look designed. It’s like saying computer code exists because that’s the language of computers. True, but unhelpful. The existence of computer code demands a better explanation than its function and is obviously the product of intelligence and purpose.

The First Thing

It seems necessary that something must have always existed. We exist because our parents existed, on and on into the past. Eventually, we reach the very first person in our genetic line, without whom our life would be impossible. So all of us are the effect of a cause -- our parents. Nothing in the physical realm is self-sustaining, which means all matter and energy are contingent on earlier generations which came before them. If we follow this regress back far enough, we reach a single point which is the beginning of everything -- a point for which there is no before.

So logically, there was a point at which nothing existed, and then the next moment something did. There are plenty of opinions about how this came about (from quantum fluctuations to multi-verse theory to an oscillating universe). Others have tried to skirt the issue entirely by appealing to an eternal universe. But the concept of an eternal universe is problematic because you can’t really get around the second law of thermodynamics (nothing can decay for eternity) and the fact that if the universe existed eternally into the past, how would we ever arrive at a point called now?

I’ve heard some very creative explanations for how the universe could be eternal in light of these issues, but the logic gets a bit warped for my liking. A rational person should have no problem accepting that the universe came into existence at a point in time. And since the universe is itself an effect (like everything else) then what is a sufficient cause?

Bertrand Russell famously said he didn’t need to bother answering this argument, because it can be defeated by asking the question, “Who created God?”

This is a fair question to ask, but there’s a reasonable (if not obvious) answer. God is simply what we call the first thing. The Prime Mover. Logic dictates that as you travel back far enough, you must eventually reach a cause that is self-sustaining and uncaused. We have solid reasons to assume the universe isn’t self-sustaining, but whatever caused the universe to exist could very well be. Again, something had to have always existed. And it seems reasonable that God could be the first thing from which everything else was birthed.

Yes, a thing or being which is uncaused, eternal and self-sustaining is very hard to imagine. It makes the brain itch to contemplate. But I also think it’s the most reasonable conclusion we can reach based on the data at hand. Every cause and effect regress back to a single point, from which there is no before. No other cause preceding it. Just a Prime Mover. But why assume the Prime Mover is God?

Whatever caused the universe to exist cannot logically be part of the universe or subject to its laws. That would be like saying a mother came into existence through her child. Whatever brought the universe into existence must be a sufficient cause and, of course, must also precede it. If we simply define “God” as the one through whom everything came, it becomes a sufficient cause. To me, it actually seems like the most rational option since the alternatives are more problematic and require some pretty elaborate mental gymnastics to avoid looking absurd.

Some of these naturalistic explanations would be considered insane if we were talking about anything other than God and origins, but they somehow get a pass here. Imagine someone walking up to you in Starbucks and saying, “A cup of coffee just appeared in my hand out of thin air! Must’ve been a quantum fluctuation. Or maybe it appeared there because there are countless other parallel universes in which I’m not holding coffee. Spooky, huh?”

You’d probably find yourself inching toward the door. Yet when we exclude the explanation of an intelligent first-cause to the universe, we are forced into believing things we know are not even remotely true. The guy at Starbucks probably just forgot that someone placed the cup into his hand since his coffee was contingent on a Barista. We can try really hard to get around the law of cause and effect, but we must invent nonsense to do it.

Morality

I used to cringe when Christians brought up the moral argument because it seemed so terribly weak. I couldn’t understand why Christian apologists used this reasoning because it didn’t seem the least bit persuasive to me. Then I read C.S. Lewis’ version of the Moral Argument in the opening chapters of Mere Christianity, and finally understood the gravity of this argument when properly considered. When asked the question, “Is it morally wrong to torture little children for the fun of it,” there’s not a sane person anywhere who wouldn’t answer the same way. Of course it’s wrong! But the moral argument isn’t about what you or I find right or wrong, or whether we are moral people, it’s about whether there is objectivity without authority.

Some of us choose to live a life full of beauty and love and sacrifice while others choose a life of hatred and cruelty and selfishness. And yet, in the end, the dispassionate grave awards both equally. Truly, death offers no distinction. No justice. Just dirt covering flesh, giving way to entropy. There is no final sorting out of all things and the lives of Mother Teresa and Adolf Hitler are counted exactly the same. Whether you save a life or steal one, the grave is the grave – and only dark silence beyond.

In a Godless universe, we are forced to pretend there are such things as meaning and value but these become fabricated concepts. We might argue that it’s beneficial to humanity if we are all kind and loving toward one another, but this arrangement only benefits the weak in society. If the strong choose to abuse and take advantage of those who are weaker, then by what authority do we deem that wrong? It sure feels wrong to those being abused, but the strong actually benefit.

Concepts like right and wrong only find meaning if there is an authority higher than human opinion. Otherwise, claiming we should be kind and fair to one another is merely a matter of taste. And why does the opinion which says it’s better to be kind to others carry any more weight than that which says the strong should take from the weak? If human beings are mere accidents of nature, concepts of right and wrong are nothing more than illusions. And yet we all somehow know this isn’t true. That’s the Moral Argument.

More could be said, but this should provide a decent summary of a few points I still find convincing, even after hearing all the objections to them from proponents of Atheism. Then again, I could be wrong. What the heck do I know?

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: The Plausibility of Atheism

Post by Paidion » Mon Oct 05, 2015 2:13 pm

Thank you, Jason, for sharing your thoughts, the thoughts that led you into becoming a Theist.

I have difficulty with your statement, "It seems necessary that something must have always existed." Why does that seem necessary?

This statement suggests to me that you believe in an infinite regression of time into the past, and that seems to me unintelligible.
However, perhaps that is not your position. Perhaps you mean the something must have always existed since the beginning of time.
Please clarify.

You might be interested in the following argument that I encountered in philosophy at University. If I remember correctly, I think it may have been devised by John Hick.

You are driving along a highway and you come to a high rock cut. At the bottom stones seem to have fallen. At one place you see an arrangement of stones which seem to say, "This way to Winnipeg." [I supplied "Winnipeg." The original argument used a different city]. There are also stones arranged in the shape of an arrow extending from the word "Winnipeg."

Is it possible that the stones that appear to give a message that directs one to Winnipeg could have formed by the accidental fall of the stones from the face of the rock cut?
Unlikely as it may seem, I think one could agree that it is possible for that arrangement to have come about by accident. However, suppose you actually believe that the arrangement came about by the accidental fall of stones. Then you would have no reason to believe what the stones seem to tell you, that Winnipeg is actually in the direction that the arrow points.

Now consider your eyes. Did they come about by accident? If so, then would there be any reason to believe what they seem to tell you?
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
Jason
Posts: 379
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: The Plausibility of Atheism

Post by Jason » Mon Oct 05, 2015 2:58 pm

Paidion wrote:Thank you, Jason, for sharing your thoughts, the thoughts that led you into becoming a Theist.

I have difficulty with your statement, "It seems necessary that something must have always existed." Why does that seem necessary?

This statement suggests to me that you believe in an infinite regression of time into the past, and that seems to me unintelligible.
However, perhaps that is not your position. Perhaps you mean the something must have always existed since the beginning of time.
Please clarify.
Sure. I'm actually arguing against an infinite regress. As in, all contingent realities regress back to a single, noncontingent reality. Since there are different theories of "time" I try to avoid using it as a reference. So in my argument, I'm talking about events (causes and effects) and taking them backwards until you inevitably reach the earliest cause. In more common terms -- rewinding the video until you reach the first frame.

Your example of the falling rocks does seem to demonstrate the practical side of what we're discussing. An apparent design tells us nothing useful about reality.

User avatar
robbyyoung
Posts: 811
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:23 am

Re: The Plausibility of Atheism

Post by robbyyoung » Mon Oct 05, 2015 5:09 pm

Jason wrote:Your example of the falling rocks does seem to demonstrate the practical side of what we're discussing. An apparent design tells us nothing useful about reality.
Hi Jason,

This example isn't practical at all and is way too simplistic. First of all, Winnipeg existed before the rocks fell, and the rocks holds no correlation to the creation or purpose of Winnipeg, besides pointing and spelling. Winnipeg would exist without the anomaly. Our natural world is extremely complex with purpose at every level, so much so, that there is no such thing, theoretically as a last piece. Creation seems to have an eternal signature. An atheist may say it all goes back to a singularity, however, they have no idea what that is, but it still begs the question concerning how did this order and seemingly intelligence (power) always exist out of nothing?

God bless.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: The Plausibility of Atheism

Post by Paidion » Mon Oct 05, 2015 7:40 pm

This example isn't practical at all and is way too simplistic. First of all, Winnipeg existed before the rocks fell, and the rocks holds no correlation to the creation or purpose of Winnipeg, besides pointing and spelling.
Irrelevant. I think you missed the point of the argument.
Last edited by Paidion on Mon Oct 05, 2015 7:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: The Plausibility of Atheism

Post by Paidion » Mon Oct 05, 2015 7:49 pm

...but it still begs the question concerning how did this order and seemingly intelligence (power) always exist out of nothing?
Two problems here:
1. This is not begging the question. "Begging the question" is a logical fallacy in which the conclusion is used as one of the premises.
2. What does it mean to say that "this order always existed out of nothing"? Do you mean that this order emerged out of nothing?
Some thinkers in the early centuries of our era believed that matter and energy had no beginning; they always existed in an infinite past. Thus, in their thinking, there was never a time when there was nothing.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
Jason
Posts: 379
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: The Plausibility of Atheism

Post by Jason » Tue Oct 06, 2015 8:28 am

robbyyoung wrote:
Jason wrote:Your example of the falling rocks does seem to demonstrate the practical side of what we're discussing. An apparent design tells us nothing useful about reality.
Hi Jason,

This example isn't practical at all and is way too simplistic. First of all, Winnipeg existed before the rocks fell, and the rocks holds no correlation to the creation or purpose of Winnipeg, besides pointing and spelling. Winnipeg would exist without the anomaly. Our natural world is extremely complex with purpose at every level, so much so, that there is no such thing, theoretically as a last piece. Creation seems to have an eternal signature. An atheist may say it all goes back to a singularity, however, they have no idea what that is, but it still begs the question concerning how did this order and seemingly intelligence (power) always exist out of nothing?

God bless.
Robby, I'm unable to follow your train of thought here. You either misunderstood what Paidion was getting at or you misunderstood what I meant by apparent design. Let me know if you'd like me to clarify the position.

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: The Plausibility of Atheism

Post by Homer » Tue Oct 06, 2015 10:11 am

Thanks for your posts Jason. Very much enjoyed!

dizerner

Re: The Plausibility of Atheism

Post by dizerner » Tue Oct 06, 2015 1:29 pm

Whatever caused the universe to exist cannot logically be part of the universe or subject to its laws.
This seems quite obvious to me as well, but surprisingly a lot of Christians seem to disagree with this: they see God as necessarily bound to time and logic. Arbitrarily they seem to throw out physics and space. It leads to such odd beliefs as Open Theism. Generally the response an atheist would give is, if God can be uncaused why can't the universe be uncaused. This is why it's important to see God as wholly other: outside of space, time and logic. This qualifies him to be a true Prime Mover.

User avatar
backwoodsman
Posts: 536
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 11:32 am
Location: Not quite at the ends of the earth, but you can see it from here.

Re: The Plausibility of Atheism

Post by backwoodsman » Tue Oct 06, 2015 2:09 pm

dizerner wrote:This is why it's important to see God as wholly other: outside of space, time and logic.
Could you please explain what you mean by God being outside of logic? It seems to me a bizarre and dangerous idea, but maybe I simply don't understand what you mean by it.

Post Reply

Return to “Agnosticism & Atheism”