The story of my current atheism and rationalism begins when I was a child; I was raised with no mention of religion and I still do not know my mother’s religious or irreligious views, I was thus left unexposed to any religion which was stated as fact for my early life. Even when I began primary school I did not know a thing about Christianity or any of the other major religions of the world today. In fact the first religion I had any understanding of was the polytheistic religion of the ancient Egyptians. This knowledge was the first time I had encountered religion; it is also worthwhile noting that I cannot quite remember what exactly I thought of it outside of the various gods looked “cool”. I learned a great deal about ancient Middle Eastern history and in particular Egypt from a wonderful set of children’s history books which my school library possessed. I read and reread continuously; absolutely enthralled by both the literary and visual content of these books. However I digress.
I was first exposed to a religion treated as though it were fact as opposed to simply a cultural belief of past times by ancient peoples (like the ancient and long defunct religions were detailed in the books in persistently read) when I was either 8 and a half or 9 years old through what was in my primary school called R.E (Which stood I believe for religious education); a program which when I and my brothers went to school ran and essentially taught you the main events detailed in the bible (Both Old and New Testament). I cannot remember what my initial thoughts were and it is unlikely that I had any of significance due to my complete ignorance of all religion with some exceptions. I cannot remember exactly what was taught during the first lesson of this class however during the second lesson the old woman who taught R.E told the story of Noah’s Flood, according to this absurd story only eight people existed in the world at 2400 BC or thereabouts. I did not quite understand how this was possible because the existence of the Egyptians and Sumeria and other neighboring states definitely had more than eight people because otherwise how were there empires existing at that time and even being formed shortly after this date. This realization lead me to interrupt and state that it’s not possible for there to only be eight people left in the world because Egypt and Sumeria had lots of people. I was politely told that in order to speak I must raise my hand and wait my turn, I thus did so and was promptly ignored which prompted me to interrupt and ask the same question/statement. This generally defiance lead my regular teacher to ask me to either stop being rude or leave. I refused and said I wanted to know the answer to my question. This ultimately lead me to end up outside in the bag area for the duration of the lesson and for the weekly lessons as I refused to not interrupt and ask “rude” questions. This first experience of religion left what was undoubtedly a bad impression and lead me to formulate the opinion that R.E was a dumb class with no point; the motivation for this view mainly being spite from her refusal to let me point out that there wasn’t eight people in the world at any point around 2400 BC.
This general disagreement with R.E lead me to end up being excluded for the several years which this program ran due to the fact that I persistently complained about the various absurdities which became more obvious as I grew older and my knowledge of history increased. By this point I was around 11-12 years old and was an agnostic (Although I didn’t know the word to describe myself at the time) having thought about the idea of a god I couldn’t think of any good reasons for one even though I couldn’t think of any really against either since I had never read anything on the subject and my opinions on the matter at this point in my life were based on nothing more than my own thoughts. My skepticism of not only the bible which had been present since I had first learnt of it continued and grew greater as I entered my teens. By the time I was around 13 I had decided that there was no need for a god and that it is beyond unreasonably improbable for a theistic god such as that of Christianity to exist given the bible’s superb rate of managing to detail supposedly huge events that never occurred as well as the numerous paradoxes and problems that result from this god supposedly being benevolent, omnipotent and omniscient. Furthermore I decided in my early teenage years that any god is neither needed for the world to exist nor is it likely as nothing in this world that we have observed is impossible without a deity.
This view and my atheism holds stronger than ever now several years after I first came to the idea that I am an atheist. Reason and logic compel me to disavow the theistic god’s of our world’s major religions on the basis of the paradoxes and problems raised by their qualities such as in the case of Yahweh; a benevolent being who created a system in which souls are supposedly created WITH the knowledge of this being that they will commit acts which will get then sent unto a place of eternal torture? Which benevolent being creates a system of such barbarity that is akin to Hitler breeding Jews simply so that the SS could kill them? Additionally the extraordinary track record of failure on material matters that are testable by science that is possessed by all major religions that make claims in regards to the material world (and only world); the supposedly flawless and ever-truthful fairy tale known as the Qur’an says a great flood occurred yet this did not happen nor did the great exodus of the Jews from Egypt as detailed in the Old Testament.
Even a deistic god falls in the face of reason for the absence of any reason or necessity for such a being and the burden of proof alone are more than enough to fell such an idea and quite frankly there is nothing more beautiful and spectacular than the wonder of nature and a world so beautiful and grand; nothing greater than not living in fear of cosmic tyrants or eternal torment but simply living for ourselves and those we love today in the magic of reality.
Scott Taylor
Australia
This article is somewhat difficult to deal with due to the semi-illiterate writing, run-ons and patchwork subject matter. But it is possible to pull out certain ideas for inspection. Let’s start with this sentence:
” By the time I was around 13 I had decided that there was no need for a god and that it is beyond unreasonably improbable for a theistic god such as that of Christianity to exist given the bible’s superb rate of managing to detail supposedly huge events that never occurred as well as the numerous paradoxes and problems that result from this god supposedly being benevolent, omnipotent and omniscient.”
“Events which never occurred” is a large charge to make, and one might presume that being an evidence-based Atheist, he would either have evidence for that assertion or that he would at least point us to the empirical data which support it. But he provides no support, so we are justified in disregarding this claim.
His next claim is based on “…this god supposedly being benevolent, omnipotent and omniscient.” Since none of these claims are necessary for a first cause or for Theism, then the consequences of these claims are not applicable to the first cause or Theism either.
Next Scott says, ” god is neither needed for the world to exist nor is it likely as nothing in this world that we have observed is impossible without a deity.”
Many of the Atheists in this series make claims without either argument or evidence. Apparently these claims are considered to be so self-evident that they are Atheist First Principles, which need no defense. In this case, Scott makes a sweeping general statement which he considers to be true while not acknowledging any existing arguments against it. Possible counter arguments are the familiar questions: (a) Is there a first cause? (b) How does basic mass/energy translate into intellect, agency, and moral positions considering the natural laws that regulate and limit the behavior of mass/energy? It is doubtful that Scott has considered any of the obvious arguments against his claim; the claim itself seems to be all the evidence Scott needs.
Next Scott compares God with Hitler, because God creates souls, some of which reject him and get sent to Hell. The argument against Hell is a compelling one for Atheists, because they just don’t like having consequences for exercising their perfect freedom from consequences. But as for the impact of this on the existence of a first cause? No impact. And what is the source of Scott's presupposed superior moral authority? He doesn't provide credentials for that.
” Additionally the extraordinary track record of failure on material matters that are testable by science that is possessed by all major religions that make claims in regards to the material world (and only world)”
Scott seems to think that a great flood and the exodus of the Jews via the Sinai desert have been disproved by scientific experimentation somehow. Again there are only assertions, no evidence. Nope, no evidence.
Scott wraps up with an almost incomprenhsible, paragraph long, sentence. Let’s pluck out some of his points:
(a) There is no reason for even a deistic deity.
(b) Something about burden of proof felling such an idea.
(c) Nature is beautiful and spectacular and the world is beautiful and grand.
(d) Something about not living under a being he doesn’t like and having consequences he doesn’t like.
(e) Living for himself.
(f) Living for loved ones.
(g) Reality is magic.
Out of this list of issues or observations or whatever it might be, there is only one actual claim. Scott claims that there is no “reason” for expecting a first cause to exist. He backs up this assertion with the additional claim that he doesn’t need to back it up. There apparently is no Burden Of Rebuttal in Scott’s world, nor is there any need to provide material evidence for assertions which he makes as truth statements. Claiming “Burden of Proof” is enough evidence to make truth claims.
It seems pretty obvious that some Atheists hang out solely at Atheist web sites and they internalize the simplistic sound-bite arguments that Atheists make there. These are taken as TRUTH in the same fashion as bumper sticker statements are: they reinforce prejudices without fear of contradiction. There is no attempt to find or understand counter arguments, so they assume that such arguments do not even exist. There is no further thought even necessary beyond the slaking of one’s thirst for personal validation of one's self-authorized superiority.
And then they claim that this is, in Scott’s words: “reason and logic”. Mistaking prejudice for reason and logic is common in the Atheist world. It appears that few, if any, have any idea that logic is a grounded discipline, and is not “free” to propose any prejudice as “truth”. And their idea of reason commonly is to find premises which support their conclusion: rationalization. Neither logic nor reason support Atheism, and neither does science. But Atheists claim all three, then wonder why they aren’t trusted by the rest of us.
No comments:
Post a Comment