Evolution and Why Labels Don’t Matter

Theists (especially Young Earth Creationists who deny the reality of evolution) love to make a big deal about the emergence of species, constantly asking for evidence of one species (or “kind”) turning into another, or asking how the “first” member of a species could have possibly shown up suddenly one day if it had no other member of its species to mate with, etc. Here’s the thing that these folks either do not understand or else choose to ignore, however:

We humans looooove labels. We just can’t help ourselves. We have this innate burning need to distinguish everything from everything else and give it all labels to make sure that everybody knows what we are talking about. We have chairs and we have beds. When somebody invents something that can be used as both a chair and a bed, we call it a futon rather than just admitting that “chair” and “bed” are arbitrary labels in the first place. We label eating utensils that have tines as “forks” and eating utensils that have bowl-like depressions as “spoons”. But then somebody comes up with a utensil that has tines and a bowl-like depression, and we have to come up with a new label “spork” (or “runcible spoon,” if you prefer) because we just can’t deal with something that contradicts our previously defined labels.

The same is true with biology. We have “cats” and we have “dogs” and we have “birds” and we somehow think that just because we have come up with these labels that nature somehow cares one whit about making sure that reality conforms with them. And, sure, it’s pretty obvious that cats and dogs and birds are pretty distinct from each other, but things get awfully muddy when you start labeling each individual species of cat, dog and bird. Not to mention ape. We have arbitrarily defined “species” as groups of animals that can interbreed with each other, but this is simply our way of labeling things and not a hard and fast natural law. That’s why there are things like “ring species” where one group of animals can interbreed with a similar group living in proximity to them, and that group can interbreed with another group that lives in proximity to them, etc., but you eventually get to a group that can interbreed with their closest neighbor but can not interbreed with the original group. We then feel compelled to label the last group a different species from the first group.

All of this is to say that, yes, evolution is true and occurring all the time and yes, this means that any labels we put on things with regard to species, genus, etc., are necessarily going to be imprecise and have gray areas and be subject to revision. Which is, of course, why it is so ironic when some people who deny evolution claim it’s impossible for one “kind” of animal to evolve into another “kind” over time, as if they themselves have some infallible way of labeling things.

Is There Such a Thing as “Objective” Morality?

[Note: I have previously written about what morality means to an atheist here: On Morality.  Here I discuss the claim by theists that they -- and they alone -- have access to a set of "objective" moral principles.]

For any sort of moral principles to be objective, they would have to be unchanging and apply to all people in all circumstances. One way to possibly have some sort of objective morality would be to have it imposed from an external source such as a God of some sort, in which case morality becomes whatever that God says to do or not do. Unfortunately, even if you believe in a God of some sort (which I don’t), using a God as the source of objective morality quickly becomes an exercise in futility because:

• Nobody can agree upon what, exactly, God has said to do and not do, even among members of the same religious communities.
  
• Many of the things God supposedly told his children to do and not do thousands of years ago seem to have been tailored specifically for the culture in which his children lived back then [Gee, an “objective” morality that changes over time, go figure…].
  
• God apparently refuses to provide any clarification today to clear up the various misinterpretations regarding his moral principles.

Another way to possibly have some sort of objective morality is to claim that there are fundamental laws of nature that somehow dictate what is “good” and “bad” when it comes to how we treat our fellow man. I know a number of atheists who really try to make this argument, presumably so that they can silence the theists who keep claiming that atheists can’t be moral since they have no basis for objective morality. I’m not swayed by this, however.

First of all, I’m not at all swayed by the claim that objective morality is even needed in the first place to be moral. Morality is a set of principles that govern how we act toward one another, and one can follow those principles regardless of whether those principles are based on some “objective” or “absolute” standards or laws.

Second of all, I’m not convinced that there are any absolute natural laws or principles that determine (or can be used to determine) whether our actions are objectively “good” or “moral”. At most, I think that humans have, on the whole, an innate sense of empathy toward each other that tends to make us feel happy when others are happy and sad when others are sad, and that can certainly for the basis of a general principle of “treat others the way you want to be treated,” but that only goes so far. That innate empathy often only extends to members of our immediate family or tribe, and sometimes doesn’t even go that far. It is also possible to derive some general moral principles from our long experience with civilization and our experimental discovery of what sorts of laws best help a society to run smoothly. Once again, though, I hesitate to call these in any way “objective” or “absolute” since so many different societies and cultures throughout recorded history have come up with radically different laws.

The closest thing to any sort of “objective” morality I think we could ever really come up with is the simple realization that all humans are equally deserving of the same respect simply be virtue of being human. Different actions and situations may warrant different treatment, but the underlying principle of respect would remain a constant.

Why the Word “Supernatural” Is Meaningless

[Periodically, a question comes up asking whether atheists reject the entire idea of “the supernatural” all together or whether it’s just God that we don’t believe in. I can’t speak for all atheists, but as far as I am concerned the entire idea of “supernatural” is a wholly empty and meaningless concept to begin with. Of course, every time this question is asked, I come up with a slightly different way to express my feelings, so this post just captures my various responses.]

The word “supernatural” is wholly meaningless because:

1. The natural world encompasses everything we can see, feel, hear, taste, measure or in any way detect.
   
2. In order for something to truly be “supernatural”, it would necessarily need to not be part of the natural world.
   
3. Anything that is not part of the natural world cannot be seen, felt, heard, tasted, measured or in any way detected.
   
4. Therefore, regardless of whether anything supernatural exists or not, it is meaningless to talk about it since there is no way to detect it or know anything about it. The moment it becomes detectable in any way, it ceases to become supernatural. 

---

In my experience, “Supernatural” is just a term that people use to describe proposed things for which there is no proof or good evidence but which we nevertheless think might possibly exist in some sense. Or, perhaps, things that we really wish existed despite all evidence to the contrary. For example:

• We have no real proof or good evidence that God exists, but we really, really wish He did, so let’s say that God is “supernatural” to explain why we can’t detect any evidence of His existence rather than acknowledging He doesn’t actually exist.
  
• We have no real proof or good evidence that ghosts exists, but we really, really wish they did, so let’s say that ghosts are “supernatural” to explain why we can’t detect any evidence of their existence rather than acknowledging they don’t actually exist.
  
• We have no real proof or good evidence that psychic powers exists, but we really, really wish they did, so let’s say that psychic powers are “supernatural” to explain why we can’t detect any evidence of their existence rather than acknowledging they don’t actually exist.
  
• We have no real proof or good evidence that the human spirit or soul exists apart from human brains, but we really, really wish they did, so let’s say spirits and souls are “supernatural” to explain why we can’t detect any evidence of their existence rather than acknowledging they don’t actually exist.

Rinse and repeat.

---

Atheists, as a rule, don’t claim to have beliefs or knowledge about ultimate or absolute truths. That’s usually the realm of theists, and atheists generally say they don’t believe those claims.

As a rationalist, however, I strongly believe that “supernatural” is just a term made up to justify a belief in something for which there is no supporting evidence. Sure, there are things in the world that people can’t currently explain. Perhaps there even things that we will never be able to explain (why does seeing a person yawn make us want to yawn as well?). But anything that we can observe or detect or that has any effect whatsoever on the natural world is, as far as I’m concerned, part of the natural world and therefore, by definition, not supernatural.

Or, to put it another way, the supernatural cannot exist because existence itself is a natural state:

1. Something can be said to exist if it is composed of matter or energy and occupies time and space.
   
2. Anything that is composed of matter or energy and occupies time and space is part of the natural world.
   
3. Anything “supernatural” would, by definition, not be part of the natural world and would therefore need to not be composed of matter or energy nor occupy time or space.
   
4. Therefore, anything supernatural cannot be said to actually exist. Q.E.D.

The Logical Impossibility of God

Is God constrained by the laws of logic?  It's an important question, and the answer seems to be, "Yes, but only when it's convenient to say that He is."

It's an old chestnut of a question, but whenever theists start talking about how their particular version of God is "omnipotent" some atheist wag will invariably ask, "If God is omnipotent, can He create a stone so massive that He can't move it?"  To which the theist will usually respond, "that's a logical impossibility and being omnipotent means being able to do anything logically possible."  OK, so no creating a stone too massive for Him to move, no creating a square circle, etc.  Got it.  And, presumably, this is because logic transcends human understanding and provides general principles of existence.  There isn't "human logic" and "God logic," there's just logic.

With me so far?

OK, now one of the fundamental principles of logic is the so-called Law of Non-contradiction, which in its basic form states that, "Contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time."  This means that the two propositions "A is B" and "A is not B" are mutually exclusive.  It also means that something cannot simultaneously be two opposite things.  This is why, for example, there can be no such thing as a square circle or an married bachelor since both concepts involve a self-contradiction.

So, is there anything about God's supposed nature that violates the Law of Non-contradiction?

Well, one place to start would be to examine the relationship between him supposedly being  both omnipotent (all powerful) and omnibenevolent (all loving).  This apparent contradiction was perhaps best stated by the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus, who put it this way:

God, he says, either wishes to take away evils, and is unable; or He is able, and is unwilling; or He is neither willing nor able, or He is both willing and able. If He is willing and is unable, He is feeble, which is not in accordance with the character of God; if He is able and unwilling, He is envious, which is equally at variance with God; if He is neither willing nor able, He is both envious and feeble, and therefore not God; if He is both willing and able, which alone is suitable to God, from what source then are evils? Or why does He not remove them?

Or, as it is commonly put:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent.
Is He able, but not willing? Then He is not benevolent.
Is He both able and willing? Then whence comment evil?
Is He neither willing nor able? Then why call Him God?

So that's it, right?  The so-called "Problem of Evil" proves the logical impossibility of God since (a) Evil cannot exist if there is an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God and (b) we know from our own experience that there is, in fact, evil.  Well, not quite...

Although this argument has been sufficient to convince many people throughout history to reject the idea of God, those who cling to their beliefs have come up with numerous ways to get around the apparent contradiction:

• "Evil," they will say, "is the result of human free will, and since God values free will more than anything He allows evil."  Except, of course, this only applies to evil acts done as a result of human free will (murder, rape, robbery, etc.) and wholly ignores things like pain and suffering caused by genetic diseases, natural disasters, accidents, etc.


• "When Adam and Eve sinned against God in the Garden of Eden, the world fell into a fallen state, so all the evils in the world are a direct result of those actions."  Except, of course, this doesn't explain why God would need to punish the entire world (not to mention universe) because of the actions of two people.  Why not simply punish Adam and Eve (and all their descendants if God were feeling particularly vengeful) and leave the rest of the natural world alone?  Why make animals die horribly painful and cruel deaths just to teach us a lesson?  Wouldn't it be a more powerful lesson if everything in nature was blissfully happy except for us?  Besides, God is the one who set the whole system up in the first place, so it was his decision to make the whole universe suffer for the sins of Adam and Eve and not their free will.


• "This life is a test, and how we deal with suffering will determine our eternal fate."  Well, OK, but that seems awfully callous when applying it to, say, young children who are born with horrible genetic diseases that cause them to lead painfully short lives.  It also doesn't address all the pain and suffering throughout the rest of the natural world.


• "This life is but a twinkling of an eye when compared to all eternity, so any pain and suffering we experience while alive will seem like a mere pin-prick when compared to the rest of our existence."

And the list goes on and on.  The bottom line is that there's always some way to define "omnipotent", "omnibenevolent" and even "evil" to avoid inherent contradictions, even if the newly defined terms don't really make much sense or accord with experience.  "An all-loving God is one who lets His children have free will, not freedom from suffering."  "Pain and suffering are actually good things, not evils."  You get the idea.  As I said, a lot of people are not convinced by these rationalizations, but they do make it hard to state unequivocally that God is logically impossible solely due to the so-called Problem of Evil.

OK, how about this?  In order to create the universe, which is the totality of all time and space, God must exist outside of time and space.  Which means He must not be composed of matter or energy Himself.  But, if God is not composed of matter or energy, how can He possibly have created matter and energy in the first place and how can He continue to interact with it today?  That seems like a logical contradiction, doesn't it?

Well, not quite.  Even if we accept that God is composed of neither matter nor energy, we cannot state unequivocally that He would therefore be unable to interact with matter and energy.  In the same way that energy can interact with matter despite not being composed of matter, God could be composed of some entirely different substance (let's call it "mind" or "spirit") that can interact with matter and energy in some way we just can't understand.  Of course, we now know that energy actually is composed of matter in a very real sense, but that just means the analogy (commonly used by theistic apologists) is a bad one.  It doesn't change the fact that God logically could be composed of some other substance that allows Him to interact with matter and energy without being composed of matter or energy Himself.

OK, so the mere fact that God somehow interacts with matter and energy while being composed of neither is not, in and of itself, a logical impossibility.  I think we are getting very close, however...

In order to avoid any apparent contradictions inherent in the notion of a God who is timeless and not composed of matter or energy, Christian apologists over the years have declared that God is both "Transcendent" and "Immanent".  According to Wikipedia,  the two terms are defined as follows:

Transcendence refers to the aspect of a god's nature and power which is wholly independent of the material universe, beyond all physical laws. This is contrasted with Immanence, where a god is said to be fully present in the physical world and thus accessible to creatures in various ways. 

Or, in other words, God is both wholly apart from the material universe and wholly within the material universe. At the same time.  He is simultaneously B and not B.  His very nature is therefore in violation of the Law of Non-contradiction and He is therefore logically impossible.  Q.E.D.

Now, some will argue (and believe me, they have) that it doesn't matter if God is logically impossible since we're only talking about human logic here and God is above such things.  Well, fine, except then why do you claim that an omnipotent God can't create a rock too massive for Him to move or can't create a square circle?  Aren't those just principles of human logic as well?  It seems that if you want to apply some logical principles to God, you would have to apply all of them (not just the ones that are convenient).

It seems that theists are left with three possible responses to this:

1. They can claim that God isn't bound by anything whatsoever and therefore can actually create a rock too massive for Him to move, create a square circle, etc.  Of course, once you throw all logic out the window it becomes rather pointless to discuss anything, but some theists are apparently willing to do just this.


2. They can claim that Immanence and Transcendence aren't actually opposites despite the plain definitions of the words.  But, since the whole idea of God being both Immanent and Transcendent is a way to explain how He could create the universe and still be part of the universe, there's no real way of getting around the fact that they are, in fact, complete opposites.  A lot of theists do go down this path, but they are usually the same ones who will write dissertations on how God can simultaneously be three distinct beings and one unified being that is absolutely not made up of three distinct beings whatsoever ["We worship one God in trinity, and trinity in unity, neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance. For the person of the Father is one; of the Son, another; of the Holy Spirit, another. But the divinity of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is one, the glory equal, the majesty equal. Such as is the Father, such also is the Son, and such the Holy Spirit. The Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated, the Holy Spirit is uncreated. The Father is infinite, the Son is infinite, the Holy Spirit is infinite. The Father is eternal, the Son is eternal, the Holy Spirit is eternal. And yet there are not three eternal Beings, but one eternal Being. So also there are not three uncreated Beings, nor three infinite Beings, but one uncreated and one infinite Being. In like manner, the Father is omnipotent, the Son is omnipotent, and the Holy Spirit is omnipotent. And yet there are not three omnipotent Beings, but one omnipotent Being. Thus the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And yet there are not three Gods, but one God only. The Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and the Holy Spirit is Lord. And yet there are not three Lords, but one Lord only. For as we are compelled by Christian truth to confess each person distinctively to be both God and Lord, we are prohibited by the Catholic religion to say that there are three Gods or Lords. The Father is made by none, nor created, nor begotten. The Son is from the Father alone, not made, not created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is not created by the Father and the Son, nor begotten, but proceeds. Therefore, there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits. And in this Trinity there is nothing prior or posterior, nothing greater or less, but all three persons are coeternal and coequal to themselves. So that through all, as was said above, both unity in trinity and trinity in unity is to be adored. Whoever would be saved, let him thus think concerning the Trinity."]


3. They can just wave their magical Wand of Definitions^TM and state that God is defined as the sort of being who can be both Transcendent and Immanent without there being any sort of logical contradiction involved.

The bottom line, as far as I am concerned, is that God is absolutely and undeniably logically  impossible, a self-contradiction (at least as commonly depicted and worshiped).  The only question is whether theists actually care about this fact or whether cognitive dissonance will force them to compartmentalize and ignore it so as to not feel any angst about their beliefs.

Christian Contradictions Redux

Much of this has been covered in other posts on this blog, but I thought it would be interesting to compile a list of what I think are the most blatant internal contradictions I have encountered with religious beliefs over the years, specifically with Christian beliefs.  And by “internal contradiction” I mean incoherence: one part of the doctrine contradicting another part, not the doctrine contradicting empirical fact or scientific theory.

• Jesus stated many times in the New Testament that if his followers asked for anything in his name (or in the name of the Father or with faith, etc.), it would be given to them. And yet, when you ask most Christians why they didn’t get what they prayed for, you are told that “God promised to answer all prayers, but sometimes the answer is ‘no’” and “God moves in mysterious ways.”
  
• Many theists claim that it is impossible to have any sort of “absolute” morality without God, since man’s morality is always relative. Furthermore, the way to discover God’s absolute morality is by reading the Bible. However, when pressed to explain why God commanded or permitted many things that seem horrible today (slavery, genocide, etc.) or why God forbade many things that seem perfectly all right today (eating pork and shellfish, mixing two different types of fabrics, etc.), the answer is often that those rules were given for the people who lived at that time and don’t apply to us today. In other words, God’s morality is relative and not absolute after all.
  
• Many theists claim that the apparent design we see in nature is “proof” (or at least strong evidence) for the existence of God, since only a perfect being such as God could be responsible for the perfection of design we see all around us. However, when you point out all the obvious flaws with nature’s designs (blind spots in the human eye, etc.), the response is that Adam and Eve sinned, thereby causing the universe to enter into a “fallen” state. If the apparent design is obviously flawed, however, how can you point to its perfection as proof of God’s existence?

• If all children are said to be innocent (“Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven”), how can some Christians also believe that the mere act of being born means that they have sinned enough to be condemned to an eternity of torment in Hell unless saved by Christ’s redeeming grace?
  
• If God loves and cares for all his creations (including the lowly sparrow, according to scripture), why did he create a world where there is so much suffering in the natural world? I’m not talking about man’s inhumanity to man and suffering caused by free will, but the fact that some animals survive by eating other animals, some wasps lay their eggs in living hosts who are eaten alive once the eggs hatch, etc. Saying, “It’s all Adam and Eve’s fault since their sin cause the world to enter a fallen state” doesn’t resolve the contradiction, since God set up the rules in the first place. The world didn’t have to enter a fallen state when Adam and Eve sinned, that’s just how God set things up. He could have set it up so mankind suffered, but the rest of the natural world didn’t. So either God’s not really omnipotent after all or else he just really likes to see small cute little animals suffer and die.
  
• The so-called “Prosperity Gospel”. On one hand, Jesus commanded his followers to give their money to the poor and said that it would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into heaven. On the other hand, worship Jesus (by giving me all your money) and he will make you fabulously wealthy, just like me!
  
• On one hand, Christians believe that God is eternal and unchangeable (“the same yesterday, and today, and forever”) and that Jesus did not come to destroy or abolish the law of the Old Testament (“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”) On the other hand, when asked why we no longer have to keep kosher today, or stone homosexuals, or avoid mixing threads of two different fabrics, etc., the answer is invariably because Jesus did away with the Old Testament law and we don’t have to follow it today. Well, except for the parts we really like, such as the 10 commandments. And, really, anything that says homosexuality is bad. But shrimp and bacon? Om nom nom nom…
  
• Many Christians here in the U.S. insist that America was founded as a Christian country and that our legal system derives from the Bible. As such, they think it would be great to have laws that outlaw abortion, gay rights, etc. However, the Bible also requires believers to aid the poor and needy. So we should have laws in place to help the poor and the needy, right? No, of course not, since that is something individuals should be concerned with and not the government. In other words, legally banning gay marriage is good since it accords with the Old Testament, but food stamps and welfare programs are bad, despite the fact that they accord with the New Testament. Gotcha.
  
• Theists often attack atheists who believe the universe was NOT created by God by claiming that atheists believe that the universe “came from nothing” (a patently ridiculous concept, apparently). But when asked how the universe was created, they state that God created it… from nothing!

Puny God Redux

A couple of years ago I made a post entitled "Puny God" wherein I talked about how odd I found it that God was so often depicted in modern media as, well, less than the omnipotent, omniscient, infallible being in whom most modern theists claim to actually believe.  At the time, I had just finished reading a set of novels upon which the FX Series "The Strain" was based, and [*SPOILER ALERT*] I was struck by how often God is depicted simultaneously as (a) wholly involved in this little teeny corner of all existence and (b) willing to let huge amounts of his creation suffer and die because of some oversight on His part.  I mean, we are not even talking about suffering caused by mankind's exercise of free will or living in a "fallen" world due to Adam's original sin or any other apologetic justification for why bad things happen to good people.  No, I'm talking about cases where an Angel rebels and decides to wipe out most of humanity.  Or where some ancient artifact once touched by God has been left behind to gather power until a servant of the Devil (or the Devil himself) is able to possess it and wreak havoc.

Anyway, today's redux comes after finishing the entire "Preacher" series of graphic novels, upon which the new AMC series of the same name is loosely based.  It's certainly an entertaining series (albeit a bit too heavy on the sex and nudity and foul language for my taste, even though it's clear that it all serves an important part of the story), but once again it just makes me wonder what sort of God is actually being worshiped here, anyway?

I know all about Young Earth Creationists and their literal view of scriptures.  Yeah, they believe the entire universe really was created 6000-10000 years ago, all the animal species alive today descended from the animals Noah brought with him on the ark 4000 years ago, all of humanity descended from a pair of human beings divinely created as-is in the Garden of Eden, etc.  And I know that many of them have even tried to explain that, since the universe is only 6000-7000 years old, it can't possibly be as big as astronomers want us to believe or, if it is, that's because God created it that big in the first place and set all the photons from distant stars and galaxies midway on their journey to us so it would only appear that they must have traveled millions or even billions of years to get to us.

But seriously, do any of them actually still believe that the Earth is flat, that the sun (and the entire universe) revolves around it once a day, that God is "up there" in the clouds somewhere and that Satan and Hell are "down there" below our feet?  I'm assuming the answer is no, but that just brings me back to my original question as to why God is always depicted as if that's exactly the way the universe is?  The majority of modern day theists seem to prefer to talk about a God who is immaterial, timeless, etc., whose love and intelligence fills the entire universe, as opposed to a glowing white guy with a beard who sits on his thrown in the sky looking down on us.  That presumably lets them maintain their belief in God specifically in the face of all the incontrovertible evidence that the universe is vastly old and vastly huge and that there is no heaven in the sky and no hell beneath our feet.  And, as I said, I don't think even the most die-hard literalists really think God is up there in the clouds somewhere.

So why, why, why does God keep getting portrayed as if our knowledge of the universe had not advanced a whit from the days of those who wrote the scriptures thousands of years ago?  What is this fascination with a version of God that most (if not all) theists agree couldn't possibly be correct?  I mean, I'm fine with it because I acknowledge that it is all fiction and quibbling with the way God is depicted would be like complaining because the Ewoks from Star Wars don't seem realistic enough.  But if theists really do believe that God is some immaterial, timeless being that has an entire universe to take care of, why isn't he ever actually portrayed that way and why are books and movies that portray him as a "puny God so darn popular?

Is it just because all these popular books and movies are produced by atheists?  Are the audiences that lap them up also atheists (even if they won't admit it publicly)?  Or do they, like me, just enjoy these stories as the fiction they are despite the fact that acknowledging them as wholly fictional undercuts the very foundation of their beliefs?

I would honestly like to hear from theists who like these sorts of movies, books, comics, etc.  Are they comfortable with God being literally depicted as the holy scriptures describe him instead of the way most "enlightened" theists talk about him today?  Or would it be more disturbing to actually depict God as he is usually described today (immaterial, timeless, etc.) instead of as a glorified, glowing figure in a white beard who sits in a thrown in the sky and comes down to chat every now and then?

I suspect that most "enlightened" theists today want to believe in a personal "Sky Daddy" of a God who, just like the scriptures teach, looks like us, watches over us, cares for us, and could possibly come down from his thrown and provide individual help if we needed it.  Of course, they can't actually say that's what they actually do believe, since they know they would be ridiculed for doing so (which is why they've come up with this whole idea of an "unprovable" God who doesn't show himself directly and whose very existence must be taken on faith alone).  But maybe that's why these depictions of God in movies, television, books, etc. are so popular -- because theists today desperately want to believe that God is how he is depicted in the scriptures and not the watered-down, science-accommodating, non-falsifiable "God is love" type of being that most theists seem to espouse these days.

That's just my theory, though.  I'd love to here what you think...

"Molecules In Motion"

There's a recurring statement that comes up in a variety of contexts, whether it be discussions of free will, morality, evidence of God's existence, etc., that atheists believe that nothing exists in the universe except for matter and energy and therefore must think that human beings are nothing more than "molecules in motion" (or words to that effect).  For example, when discussing morality, a theist might claim that atheists have no way of justifying a belief in morality without a belief in God since, after all, atheists think we're all just a bunch of molecules in motion (or matter and energy) following Newton's laws of motion and acting in predetermined ways based on stimuli.  Or something like that.  So, the argument goes, how can there be any morality if we are not free to choose our own actions?

This same argument is used to explain why there supposedly can't be any sort of free will without there being a supernatural being to give us that free will.  Sometimes it's even used to prove the existence of God, since there's supposedly no other way that consciousness could possibly arise from "mere" matter and energy.

When this argument is raised, in whatever context, the person representing the atheist point of view often tries to defend how its possible to have morality based on natural laws that are wholly apart from human consciousness.  Or perhaps that it doesn't matter whether we "really" have free will as long as we think that we do and act in accordance with that belief.

Personally, I think trying to argue along these lines misses the boat.  Once again, theists are just presenting another form of "Argument from Ignorance" and claiming that, since atheists can't explain it, God must be the answer.  However, rather than falling into this trap and trying to explain something that may very well be inexplicable, I think it's better to simply acknowledge that we don't know how consciousness and free will could arise from matter and energy.  The fact that we can't explain it doesn't mean that it has to be God.  It just means that we can't explain it.  And it also doesn't mean that the theist explanation of God is the correct explanation, either.  I mean, if we're going to assume that any explanation must be better than no explanation, then I'll go ahead and posit that consciousness and free will arises due to the presence of immaterial and undetectable "mind" particles that permeate the universe and accumulate over time in our brains.  Sure, I have no evidence that these particles exist, let alone that they do what I claim they do, but apparently that doesn't matter as long as they explain the observed phenomena that we do have consciousness and free will, right?  And can anybody prove that my immaterial and undetectable particles don't exist?

The bottom line, as always, is that atheism is not a claim to have all the answers about everything in the universe -- it is simply a lack of belief in the claim made by theists that they do have all the answers to everything in the universe.  Sure, I suspect that scientists (not "atheists", mind you) will someday figure out just how consciousness and free will arises naturally from matter and energy.  Or perhaps they really will find evidence of the "mind" particle I joked about earlier.  But until they do, it doesn't mean that the "God" explanation must be true in the meantime, any more than it was true that Thor was responsible for thunder until we figured out how it was really caused.