Sunday, October 23, 2011

From PZ's Place: Julia, Canada, on Why I Am An Atheist:

"For the first twelve years of my life, my mother frantically tried to bring me up in her Baptist church. She was elated that one of the first words I learnt to spell was “Jesus” at age 2. My father (who I found out to be an atheist last year) is a pilot and would conveniently bring me on fishing trips every few Sundays. It struck me as odd that he never had to go to church, but I didn’t really ask about it.


"It wasn’t very long until I started questioning. When I was 5, my Sunday School teacher “disproved” the big bang by throwing a bunch of hard plastic animal toys into a plastic bag and shaking them up together. “See?” he said. “Everything is the exact same as when it went into the bag. This means that the only way the universe could have started was through god!”
Well, I was 5. It was the ’90s. I was irrevocably in love with Bill Nye. I told my Sunday School teacher that actually, no, he had done nothing to increase the entropy inside the bag, and how on earth can you perform nuclear changes by banging a bunch of polymers together?!

"This would mark the first time I embarrassed my mother in church. I’m sure it wasn’t the last. There was so much they taught that just never made sense to me—How can everyone in heaven be happy if they know people they love are in hell? Why didn’t this all-powerful god hint to my aunt who died of rare duodenal cancer that she should get an endoscopy earlier? Moreso, why is this god such a jerk in general? Why is every religion “right”? What if religion is a farce and I waste my entire life—all that I have to live—following obscene rules instead of doing what I want? Why do these people say that without god, they would just be out raping and murdering all day? And why on earth do my Sunday School teachers keep telling me I’m going to burn in hell for listening to Queen?

"By the time I was about 12, I didn’t have to go to church anymore. Whether news of my questions reached my mother and she decided I was too much of an embarrassment, or she decided that if church and years of bible camp couldn’t sway my mind, nothing would, I don’t know. I’m now involved in an atheist club in my university where I’m studying biochemistry—a combination she’s not pleased with, but has learned to accept.

"So, why am I an atheist? Bill Nye helped me how to think and introduced me to science before my anyone else did. My childhood curiosity refused to take “Goddidit” as an answer. My amazement for the universe and how it works grows each year, and I refuse to stop at such superficial answers and instead look for the elegance of what truly goes on. I’m an atheist because I’ve always been an atheist, and can’t imagine being limited by believing in magical sky fairies.
Julia
Canada
I’m not sure that I buy this story as being completely true, in the incorrigible sense. Maybe it is true in the Atheist ungrounded sense. Somehow I doubt the reaction to the Sunday school teacher at age 5. Nonetheless, I will stipulate for the purposes of analyzing the arguments contained.

The arguments:
1. How can everyone in heaven be happy if they know people they love are in hell?

This is probably a reference to the “odious idea” of hell. Taken at face value, she assumes happiness about the loss, but why assume that? If, in heaven, they are sad about the loss of their loved ones, does that change anything? And was not the rejection decision theirs? The question is not much of an issue. Once again, it is the idea of hell that is rejected, and that is based purely on personal opinion of how she would do things if she were God. But she is not. So it's moot.

2. Why didn’t this all-powerful god hint to my aunt who died of rare duodenal cancer that she should get an endoscopy earlier?

If such a deity were to prevent all catastrophes including death, there would be no need for agency or free will. The human automaton scenario accompanies the God-should-prevent-all-falls-discomforts-and-death scenario. The need for intellect, self-responsibility, character development, integrity and empathy disappear. Why would she wish for such a thing?

3. Moreso, why is this god such a jerk in general?

Actually hatred of “this god” is not a real argument. Why are most Atheists jerks? Same logic: none.

4. Why is every religion “right”?

Only Atheists and relativists propose this absurd statement. It is statements like this which make me doubt the self-annointed brilliance of this person. But just to be clear, not every religion is “right”.

5. What if religion is a farce and I waste my entire life—all that I have to live—following obscene rules instead of doing what I want?

The argument for total freedom, untethered by any externals or absolutes and doing exactly “what I want”, is the formula for erroneous worldviews which are based on desires and rationalizations to support the desires, rather than seeking any principles of Truth which might get in the way. Rules are obscene if they prevent the seeker of “doing what I want” and nothing else from getting “what they want”. The pursuit of self, its indulgence and elevation is key to Atheism.

6. Why do these people say that without god, they would just be out raping and murdering all day?

This is another reason I doubt the elevated intellect presented about this person by herself. Surely she can see that the most basic element of Atheism is its lack of any attached ethic or morality. Taken by itself, just as it stands, Atheism permits all behaviors without discrimination against any of them. And that is the reason that so many Atheists claim total tolerance as their ethic, with the side dishes of empathy (for all behaviors) and justice as defined by such justice and empathy.

7. And why on earth do my Sunday School teachers keep telling me I’m going to burn in hell for listening to Queen?

I have never heard Queen, and I suspect that the argument here is the same as argument 5: I want to do whatever pleases me, with no consequences whatsoever. For me, then: no rules.

8. ” So, why am I an atheist? Bill Nye helped me how to think and introduced me to science before my anyone else did. My childhood curiosity refused to take “Goddidit” as an answer”

The childhood acceptance of Scientism as a worldview, and the ignorance of the philosophy of science, are two more reasons that I doubt the veracity of the claims of this “childhood intellectual”. And yet another is the lack of comprehension that investigating nature has nothing to do with the creation of the universe, or the first cause. If she is rejecting ecclesiastic positions on such things, she still has not refuted the first cause, nor did she even mention it.

9. ” I’m an atheist because I’ve always been an atheist, and can’t imagine being limited by believing in magical sky fairies.”

This final statement reveals the actual level of her thinking regarding deity, an Ad Hominem comment that is endemic to Atheist support websites which avoid all logical arguments in favor of false analogies using absurd strawmen and other fallacies as the basis for their worldviews. Her main case is based on science coupled with her own brilliance. Yet her sub-arguments are trivial and provide no proof of the absence of a first cause, nor the absence of non-physical existence. Her final statement shows her happiness by having no external limits, and her ignorance of any real theology, both of which are common Atheist conditions.

6 comments:

In His Name said...

'If, in heaven, they are sad about the loss of their loved ones'. There is no 'IF' we have proof that there will be no more sadness.

And here is the proof, we read in Revelation that
'there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain.'
Case closed.

Julia sounds like a very stupid person. I pray she comes to her senses before she burns forever.

Stan said...

Julia's argument presumes the existence of heaven and hell, if only for the sake of her argument. So that entails presuming that the Bible, which is the source of the concept of heaven and hell, is also the source of information on what they are like.

So from an argumentation point of view, Julia must accept the description in Revelation (for the sake of argument, again) and that defeats her argument.

yonose said...

Hello everyone!

Just for kicks,

Look at this site:

http://forthesakeofscience.com

here's another person who praises Atheism "for the sake of science". I also think you should -though old- look here (same main website):

http://forthesakeofscience.com/2010/08/02/the-failings-of-theistic-arguments/

Sadly, the scienceblogs' website is going by exactly the same agenda.

Frankly, I don't know exactly why so many New Atheists are trying to be so ardent proselytisers without giving any source of knowledge but just the green-light to "be free to think and associate whatever they please", and manipulate scientific data as if it were the final authority over spiritual knowledge, just for the sake of being rebelious.

There should be no problem with showing a bit more of humility to try, research about any other thing than the materialist philosophy or the mere opposition of their cultural upbringings (I'm just flooded with Maxist/Leninist and Skeptic literature at home, but now I've rejected the ideologies) and look for a truth -in the epistemological sense- by "sensible" experience, inducing it, then explain a procedure of how did you "get there" if you have done that procedure a considerable amount of times, to see if it's repeatable within other people or live beings, no matter their beliefs(and of course, trying to be not so reckless and look for a good way to explain it, and honest people to prove it), regarding to spirituality in general.

I think these schisms tend to be rather absurd but still, patience is key.

I apologize as this is rather subjective -may be just treated like a simple opinion as such- and out of scope so words here need to be brief and short.

My strong agnosticism was swept out by many sudden paranormal experiences.

Again, thank you Stan for this blog and everyone who is supportive with these concerns.

Kind Regards.

Stan said...

Yonose,
Your comment has suggested a great idea: These people should design an experiment to prove their hypothesis that there is no God.

Experimental design and testing is the main guarantor of knowledge within the empirical paradigm.

What kind of experiment would they design to validate their "knowledge"?

Fred said...

Stan,

Re the above, what about the whole "you can't prove a negative" issue?

Stan said...

Fred,
Yes, that's the point. They can't design an experiment which will validate their ideological ignorance. So requesting an experiment just illuminates that fact even further: they cannot have knowledge of a non-existence, especially not empirical, material knowledge, which is the type of knowledge that they demand of theists.

And it is more than just not proving a negative, it is not proving the existence of "Q" by looking exclusively through the set of "Z's". It is a basic error of logic, the Category Error.

Said otherwise, you can't find the marble maker by looking in a jar of marbles.