Is Atheism Rational? Part1Is Atheism Rational? The problems of meaning and purpose. Copyright © Howard Robinson 24th April 2010. IntroductionSince the dawn of time, mankind has debated, researched, pondered, disputed, agonised over and mulled over the subjects of meaning and purpose. Mankind has found a number of options to answer these questions: World Religions; Revelations - Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Mormonism; Philosophical Doubts or Uncertainty - Agnosticism and Atheism. Judaism, Islam, Mormonism and Christianity are different in that they claim to have been initiated by divine revelation, not by man. For a start let's look at Atheism, then the other options and take it from there. AtheismAn Atheist is someone whodisbelievesor denies the existence of God or gods. It is aphilosophical choice.It is a set of beliefs. Many Atheistsbelievethat the Scientific Method and rational thought can provide the answers to the questions of existence and purpose. Many Atheistsbelievein the Theory of Evolution and the theory of The Big Bang. [Emphasis mine]. So we see that Atheism is something that isbelievedand it is aphilosophical choicebased on thosebeliefs. The alternatives:
Most Hindus worship one or more deities, believe in reincarnation, value the practice of meditation and observe festive holidays like Diwali and Holi. Hindus believe in the law of Karma: that a good life now results in a better life in the next reincarnation. For the Hindu the goal of life is to attain freedom from reincarnation, but this is not guaranteed.
Buddhists believe in the Buddha, believed to have achieved enlightenment from thousands of re-incarnations. They do not believe that this world is created and ruled by a God or god. Essential beliefs: 1.The Buddha is our only Master. 2.We take refuge in the Buddha, the teaching of Buddha (the Dhamma) and the ordained Buddhist monks or nuns (the Sangha).
Sikh basic beliefs are summed up in the words of the Mool Mantra, the first hymn written by Guru Nanak: There is only one God. Truth is his name. He is the Creator. He is without Fear. He is without hate. He is timeless and without form. He is beyond death, the Enlightened One. He can be known by the grace of the Guru (God, the Great Teacher.). It is believed that God created everything, so all life is good, but attachment to material things leads to reincarnation and the sufferings of birth and death. The goal of Sikhism is to end the cycle of rebirth and be united with God.
Mormons believe in the Book of Mormon, which is said to have been given by Jesus Christ to their founder, Joseph Smith. They believe in a lost tribe of Israel, which settled in America. Mormons believe that Joseph Smith is the prophet through whom the Gospel of Jesus Christ was restored to earth, in these the last days, the dispensation of the fullness of times, declared and predicted by prophets in earlier dispensations.
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus was Jehovah's first creation, that Jehovah then created everything else by means of him. The leadership of Jehovah's Witnesses claims to be the sole visible channel of Jehovah and asserts that the Bible cannot be understood without associating with the Watch Tower organization. They believe that 144,000 of them will be rewarded with life in the New Earth.
Muslims believe in the first 5 Books of the Bible and that Mohammed was the Prophet of their God, Allah. Many also believe that Jesus was a prophet. All that is required is to believe and recite the Shahada: "There is no God but God, and Muhammad is his Prophet." For a Muslim, the object of life is to live in a way that is pleasing to Allah so that one may gain Paradise. It is believed that at puberty, an account of each person's deeds is opened, and this will be used at the Day of Judgment to determine his eternal fate. Like Christianity, Islam teaches the continued existence of the soul and a transformed physical existence after death. They believe in a day of judgment when humanity will be divided between the eternal destinations of Paradise and Hell.
The Jews believe they are the inheritors of the Promise given to their ancestor Abraham by a God called "I AM that I AM". This is the same God worshipped by Christians. Unlike Christianity and Islam, Judaism has no official creed or universal doctrinal requirements for membership. Good deeds and the Mitzvot, (613 commandments contained in the Torah or Five Books of Moses) not beliefs, are the most important aspect of Jewish religious life. In addition, the term "Jewish" can be used to describe a race and a culture rather than a religion. Nevertheless, the Torah and Talmud have a great deal to say about God, humanity, and the meaning of life.
This is belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world. Theism in the broadest sense is the belief in at least one deity. In a more specific sense, theism refers to a particular doctrine concerning the nature of God and his relationship to the universe.
Pantheism means literally "God is all". It is the view that everything is part of an all-encompassing immanent God. In pantheism the Universe and Nature are equivalent to God. This is the belief that the Universe is divine and should be revered. Pantheism identifies the Universe with God but denies any personality or transcendence of such a God
Belief that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. Scepticism about the existence of God, but not professing true atheism. An agnostic does not deny the existence of God and heaven but holds that one cannot know for certain whether or not they exist.
This is not a religion. It is a revelation and a relationship with God through faith in Jesus. God revealed Himself to Abraham, to Moses, through Prophets and ultimately through His Son, Jesus. Christians believe that Jesus was fully human and fully God, with the Father and Holy Spirit. Jesus claimed that faith in Him is the only way to God. Christians believe that Jesus lived a perfect, sinless life and was crucified for the sins of the world and raised from the dead. Faith in Jesus as Saviour and Lord imparts forgiveness and His perfect life to the believer. Religion is a belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. Religion can also be a personal or institutionalised system grounded in such belief and worship. Religion, by definition, ismanin search of God, god or gods. It could be argued that the same reasons for dismissing other religions should be applied to your own as a test of authenticity and truth. Religion is an example of the truth that man is naturally inclined to believe and worship. Even Atheism is a belief system, belief that there is no God. A form of religious "worship" can be loosely extended to sport, possessions and people to name but a few. So we see that there are a fair amount of faiths in opposition to Atheism. Most of them are very well worked out and seem pretty rational and reasonable. They don't, however, help us with the question, "Is Atheism Rational. For this we will have to look deeper at the origins of the universe and of life etc. Firstly, some quotes: According to Seneca the Younger (4 b.c.- 65 a.d). "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful". There is undeniable truth in this statement. People do regard religions, particularly eastern religions as true, though in our sceptical present day society there are many who regard religion as untrue and irrelevant. The wise are right to see religion as false because it is an attempt to reach God or god(s) using man made ideas and efforts. If there is a God or god, by definition this being could only be known to the extent that They wish to reveal Themself. Blaise Pascal said, "Men never commit evil so fully and joyfully as when they do it for religious convictions". This has been true in many instances from the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition to Oliver Cromwell. Jesus gave a very simple test: "by their fruits you will know them" and "a good tree will not bear bad fruits". The chief fruit for a true believer is love and there is no way that these and similar hateful (ie love-less) acts could be called love. People have used religion as leverage for their own evil agendas. Epicurus (341–270 B.C.) had a classic and very challenging argument for the non-existence of God: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" This reasoning by Epicurus is very compelling. His logic is impeccable. He clearly believes unequivocally that there is no God and sets to prove his belief. Is this rational though? It is not rational if there is reasonable doubt. We only have to look around at the world with an open mind to have reasonable doubt. Romans 1 verse 20 says, "since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." Epicurus clearly believes in evil. He is in effect saying God does not exist because evil exists. This is not rational. If evil exists then the probability is that God exists. Evil exists but it is curtailed, therefore there must be an opposite good. "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? This is another way of saying because there is evil either God is too feeble to prevent it or is not there. God certainly limits evil or it would overtake the world. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. For His eternal purposes God has postponed judgment on evil and has, in the mean time, allowed it as an alternative. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? If this is so why is there evil? Again God has allowed an alternative but has set a time to make evil cease. Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" He is willing and able but as I have said, He has set a time for this. Epicurus' words bring up two very difficult questions: 1)Why didn't God destroy evil when it happened?My answer, as I have said, would be that God has postponed punishment but appointed a time in the future for dealing with evil. Jesus gave the parable of the weeds and the wheat to explain that dealing with evil had to be postponed or it would harm God's children who are in the world. In the mean time God has allowed an alternative – the world (world system, worldly things), the flesh and the devil. 2)Why didn't He stop the fall? It was His purpose to bring a great many sons (children) into glory (his presence) Hebrews 2 vs 10. God has allowed the fall because he didn't make rigid robots but gave the first people free will. He warned them about what would happen if they tasted good and evil, that they would die. They initially died spiritually and later on died physically as well. Their children inherited these two deaths. That is why Jesus had to die in our place. George Bernard Shaw said,The fact that a believer is happier than a sceptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. This is rather like ‘religion is the opium of the people' of Karl Marx. He seems to be saying that religious faith is as intoxicating as a good deal of alcohol. There is truth here. A deeply religious person will be influenced and comforted by their religion. This may be a false peace or a false hope as by definition religion comes from man's ideas and not divine revelation. An unknown person said,"Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned".Religion should be able to be questioned. There can be no harm in questioning a religion that is true. According to Gene Roddenberry:We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes. This statement contains some errors. Firstly, humans were not created faulty. After creating the first people, we read "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good" (Genesis 1 verse 31). God did give them free will and the opportunity to obey Him or disobey Him. This was not evidence of being faulty but it did result in faultiness. God warned them that they would die if they disregarded His warning. They disobeyed Him anyway. An unknown author wrote:Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer. There is truth here and Jesus warned not to be too heavenly minded or you would be no earthly use. Conversely, there are things that can't be done by physical work but prayer alone such as salvation, healing, deliverance, help and guidance and many more. The Bible teaches the value of deeds or action flowing out of faith"What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead."(James 2 verse 14 to 17) I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world-- Richard Dawkins. I agree that religion can cause this. On the other hand, Christianity, which is a revelation and not a religion, has given us the first scientists, some outstanding like Mendel (genetics) and Newton (Physics) also outstanding men like William Wilberforce who campaigned effectively to abolish slavery. Aldous Huxley said, "Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." I agree! The problem is that some evidence is misinterpreted through ideology or philosophy to make "facts" to support that ideology or philosophy. Said William Drummond,He that will not reason is a bigot; he that cannot reason is a fool; he that dares not reason is a slave. Agreed. The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reasonBenjamin Franklin said. This may be true of religion but it is not true of revelation. Before I was a Christian my feelings were what mostly guided my decisions and behaviour. Now it is faith which mostly guides me. This faith can not be exercised without reason. If I don't use my reason as well I will be prone to all kinds of error or possible danger. In 1988, Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama said,"We must conduct research and then accept the results. If they don't stand up to experimentation, Buddha's own words must be rejected." The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also, said Mark Twain. Actually it is hard to scrutinise one's own beliefs with the intensity, depth and dismissiveness with which we scrutinise other beliefs. This statement is true and instructive. Religion is folly if it is, as I have defined it, man in search of God, using man's ways. I believe in My Self - that's enough. I believe in this life, beautiful and unique! I believe in Science! I have faith in Reason. I don't need to show what I don't believe in! I Believe in Human Race! I'm sure it's beginning to see the real light, the light of Knowledge!Says Richard Phillip. The first statement is similar to the first sin where the first people wanted to be "like god". Belief in science is okay, so long as it is limited to the how and not the why. This statement is not rational because it talks in words of faith and belief, things which, unless there is a sound basis, defy reason and rational thinking. Knowledge can cause pride and arrogant thoughts of superiority. Knowledge does not mean improved behaviour. The caricature of the evil genius is widely used as a credible character in many books and films with good reason. We instinctively see knowledge as amoral but also as a powerful tool in the hands of a bad person. The Bible warns that knowledge can make proud and teaches that love can build up. The last statement is blind faith in a humanity, which is flawed. Around the world there is still corruption, extortion, abuse of power, hate, violence and greed. Yes there is good as well, but the human race has not improved and shows no evidence of improving. Technology, learning and improved standards of living for some have not changed us for the better. The origin of everything. Atheism believes that the Universe came into being accidentally by a series of random events. It is expressed quite elegantly in the Big Bang Theory. Another theory, which was once proposed, is the Steady State Theory. If the universe really came about by accident is it rational to expect the laws of physics, the complex structures of atoms, molecules, solar systems and galaxies all by random accidents? The alternative to random chance is intelligent design. We will examine these three, starting with the Steady State Theory. Steady State theoryBasically this says that the universe has always existed, much as it is now, with matter being formed continually. This does not explain where this matter is coming from or, more importantly, where all the matter in the universe came from in the first place. It is irrational to say, "The universe is here, therefore it has always been here". Sadly, the Steady State theory does not meet the most basic tenets of a scientific theory, namely that there must be evidence and facts to base the theory on. Fundamentally, the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that the universe had a beginning (when the disorder was zero) so that disproves the Steady State theory. The Big Bang TheoryFirstly, the Theory The Big Bang theory is the current scientific explanation for how the universe came into being. According to the theory an extremely dense and hot ball of matter, very small in diameter, exploded, creating hydrogen and helium and providing the basis for further evolution of matter.This has to be sufficient matter to make billions of galaxies each containing hundreds of billions of stars.In theory, as the new matter expanded, it created space. It is thought that the Big Bang occurred about 10 to 20 billion years ago and that the universe has since been expanding and cooling. The most popular scientific view is that there was a singularity at first – something where the laws of physics break down. At the proposed start of the universe with a singularity the density of the universe and the curvature of space-time would have been infinite. Because all the known laws of physics break down under these conditions this is a serious problem for science. Science is therefore unable to describe or predict the initial conditions and how the universe began. It is fair to say at the outset that The Big Bang Theory does not rule out God because no one has been able to say what happened in the first small fraction of a second. The Evidence given for the Big Bang – an expanding universe For the Big Bang to be correct, the universe must be expanding outwards from the centre of the blast. Evidence for this expansion is given in the form of red shifts of galaxies and quasars. When a celestial object is travelling away from us the light emitted should speed up. But the speed of light remains constant in the universe, it cannot change, therefore, the wavelength shifts to the red. Because the spectra of elements such as hydrogen are known this "red shift" can therefore be measured. (For example, when excited, hydrogen gas gives off light in four distinct colours in the visible spectrum, as well as a number of lines in the infra-red and ultra-violet.) The red shift of the light from galaxies has been found to be proportional to their brightness and their brightness has been taken as a measure of their distance. So it appears that the farther galaxies are from us the faster they are moving away from us. Of course this makes theassumptionthat brightness is a measure of distance and also that speed away from us is theonlycause of red shifts. Let's Examine the Evidence. To Quote Stephen Hawking, "I was interested in the question of whether there had been a Big Bang singularity, because that was crucial to an understanding of the origin of the universe. Together with Roger Penrose, I developed a new set of mathematical techniques, for dealing with this and similar problems. We showed that if General Relativity was correct, any reasonable model of the universe must start with a singularity. This would mean that science could predict that the universe must have had a beginning, but that it could not predict how the universe should begin: for that one would have to appeal to God." The Big Bang Theory is just that, a theory. The facts that have been used to verify it may be in error. For example Quasars and galaxies with red shifts are thought to show that the universe is expanding and thus there has been an explosion. Have you ever seen the results of an explosion? To achieve the universe, as we know it from a Big Bangexplosion, is like an explosion in a house resulting in neatly piled bricks, glass and mortar with the rest of the contents neatly organised and catalogued. Stars of a certain mass will explode and produce a "supernova". The problem with greater mass than this above a threshold level (and the mass of the universe is definitely above that level) is that we know it will become a black hole whichwill definitely not explode. So, the Big Bang Theory has a problem right at the start of the universe – no "Bang"! The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the disorder or "entropy" of the universe increases with time. This means that space, time and matter have not always existed but came into being when entropy was zero. As we have already said, the universe had a beginning. It also means that for an explosion to result in ordered galaxies and solar systems it would have to go against this fundamental law of physics.The Second Law of Thermodynamics also shows that the universe can only have existed for a finite time. Otherwise, the universe would by now have degenerated into a state of complete disorder, in which everything would be at the same temperature. Galaxies collide, which goes against the theory of an expanding universe. Our own galaxy is on a collision course with our nearest neighbour, the Andromeda galaxy. Even though it is the same age as the Milky Way, Hubble observations reveal that the stars in Andromeda's halo are much younger than those in the Milky Way. From this and other evidence, astronomers infer that Andromeda has already collided with at least one other galaxy. We should expect that galaxies are scattered randomly throughout the universe. Instead they are often found in "clusters," which are in turn parts of extremely large structures called "super-clusters." If Big Bang really occurred there would be a far more even distribution of matter. And if galaxies, though improbable, did form, they would be moving away from each other, not colliding. Also, if the universe has been expanding for billions of years, why do we not observe a large ‘hole' where the centre of the blast was? We can turn matter into energy in exceptional circumstances such as producing a critical mass of a radioactive substance, which has an unstable nucleus, but we can't create matter. It would take more intelligence and greater technology that we possess to make matter. It would take the intelligence and the capabilities of a "God" to provide the necessary energy, convert it into matter, overrule the law of entropy and organise it into galaxies. The "quantum" theory would propose that vacuum became particle and anti-particle pairs and the energy needed for the vast amount of matter in the universe was "borrowed" from gravitational energy. This just seems a circular proposition, robbing peter to pay peter. In making an awful lot of matter an equal amount of anti-matter would be made. Where does it all go? So wheredoesall the matter come from? The theory does not answer this question or fit the condition that the matter in our universe has come from somewhere. It is easier and more rational to believe that God put it there, and at the same time gave the Laws of Physics. Red shifts of galaxies and quasars. At the centre of our spiral galaxy a lot of energy is being generated with occasional vivid flares. Based on the immense gravity that would be required to explain the movement of stars and the energy expelled, the astronomers conclude that at the centre of our galaxy is a super massive black hole. In the 1960s objects were observed which emitted radio waves and were thought to be stars. They had very unusual spectra. It was eventually realized that the spectra were so unusual because the lines were Red shifted by a very large amount, corresponding to velocities away from us that were significant fractions of the speed of light. The reason that it took some time to come to this conclusion is because these objects were thought to be relatively nearby stars, no one had any reason to believe they should be receding from us at such velocities. The current model of a quasar has a super-massive spinning Black Hole at the centre. This spinning action produces a "swirl of space" pulling gas streams in a spiral motion towards the hole. These gas streams collide as a result of the enormous gravitational energy and create intense heat. This is what gives a quasar its high luminosity. They can emit as much energy as an entire galaxy. Current research would suggest that the implosion of a massive star, in the order of 100 million times the mass of the sun, could form a massive black hole sufficient to power a Quasar. Quasars are thought to be among the most distant objects, which can be observed. They are thought to be very distant because of their huge red shifts. As the red shift of Quasars is thought to mean speed and then this equates to distance. In any explosion the dispersed components move with different speeds. At any given time point the fastest components will be furthest away from the explosion centre. Thus, it is thought that Quasar red shifts are evidence for the Big Bang Explosion.But gravity also causes a red shift. A super massive black hole has "super massive" gravity and will most certainly produce a "super massive" red shift. So quasars are not travelling as fast as their red shifts suggest and they may not be as distant as was thought. As said earlier, they were first thought to be near, maybe they are. As we have said, there is a super massive black hole at the centre of our galaxy. If other galaxies have black holes at the centre then surely each black hole will be contributing significantly to that galaxy's red shift. Adding this to the fact that there are also galaxies coming towards us casts doubt on the Big Bang theory. For example there are a hundred galaxies, including Andromeda, which are coming towards us (with blue shifts). Suppose that the blue shift galaxies have a black hole at the centre, which is causing a red shift - and this is very probable. This means that the blue shift galaxiestrue blue shiftdue to motion is larger than observed and they are coming towards us faster than has been thought. Also, if the red shifts of galaxies and quasars are due significantly to the black hole gravitation then the universe is probably not expanding. Of course, all of this is highly hypothetical but is does cast doubts on the Big Bang. I'm not an astrophysicist, but to me there seem to be some flaws in Big Bang. Also, the supporting theory can get far too theoretical, involving matter and anti-matter, can get far too theoretical to be a realistic solution to the problem of where the universe has come from. For the Big Bang to be correct, the enormous explosion has to organise itself into atoms, molecules, stars, galaxies, planets, and living things,contraryto the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This takes an enormous leap of "faith".Take atoms for instance – each atom has a discreet orbital or a set of discreet orbitals for the electrons. Up to two electrons occupy the first shell (1S). Up to 2 electrons occupy the next orbit (2S) with a further six (2P) making up the second shell. Up to 18 electrons occupy the next shell (3S, 3P, 3D) up to 8 occupy the next shell (4S and 4P) and so on. It is interesting to note that the 3D orbital is filled after the 4S orbital, which has slightly lower energy. This always happens as electrons fill orbitals along the periodic table of elements. Sometimes the orbitals "hybridise" but it is always the same way with the same numbers of electrons to fill the orbitals. The electrons are not so much in ring like orbits but clouds of probability. If a gamma ray hits an electron it gains energy and may move up to a higher orbital, before giving out the equivalent "light" between its energy state and the orbital it came from. What makes the electrons behave so? So far as we can tell, there is only the attraction from the nucleus at work. It is mind blowing if you think just what they do. There is more than fair probability of design here! What about the spin of quasars and galaxies? Quasars spin so fast that an entire revolution only takes a few hours. Where did this angular momentum come from? Where did the rotation of the sun and the earth and the rotation of our solar system come from? An explosion is not the answer. It takes a great deal of "faith" to believe that the universe came about by random processes out of nothing and, from the evidence we have seen, this belief is not rational. Finally, Intelligent Design We have briefly discussed the "design" of atoms. There is design in the air we breathe. The nitrogen is good for our lungs and it's interesting to note that despite losses from our planet, our atmosphere, including inert gases, remains a constant 21% oxygen, 78% nitrogen, about 1% inert gases and traces of water vapour and carbon dioxide. The composition of air is unchanged until an elevation of approximately 10,000 meters. This is not an accident. Current theo |