I reject all gods and their supernatural trappings. I reject gods that play hide-and-seek and speak vaguely through ancient scrolls, fuzzy dreams, omens, drugs, and self-proclaimed prophets. I reject gods that never rise above tribal culture, delivering their messages to one little tribe and resembling glorified kings with royal tempers to match. I reject gods fixated on weird rituals. I reject gods that preside over a Judgment Day, an artificial, unforgiving line in the sand, so unnecessary, so very human! “Infinite” crimes and punishment speak not of a compassionate god. Common sense, it seems, rejects a host of gods.
Perhaps we should begin by acknowledging that an atheist might be correct. Contrary to popular belief, there is no proof for the existence of God. If there were one, it would have circled the world a hundred times by now, appearing in newspapers, philosophy courses, seminaries, and social media. Every preacher would have ditched the old discredited arguments, piling up on this one winner. But that hasn’t happened. Perhaps the proof is subtle. Sorry! The world’s religious philosophers and theologians did not in fact ditch their dubious arguments and piled up on this one clear winner.
Many theologians admit that God’s existence must be taken on faith. Why would any theologian admit such a thing if a compelling argument were at hand? A proof of God that can’t convince a theologian is not much of a proof. If not proof, perhaps faith. But faith without evidence fetches too much. The treasure sought is drowned in a flood of nonsense. Thus, I reject “blind faith,” as it proves too much. It may offer hope in times of distress, but it is no road to truth.
One may reject a claim as unworthy of further consideration if evidence is lacking; a refutation may be in hand if evidence is lacking where it must be present. But a lack of proof, as such, does not refute a claim. Travel further on my road to atheism. Early on, schooling in math and science sharpened my intellect. Then I read the Bible. We need to make a full stop here.
The God of Conservative Christianity is Hung by His Own Bible
Wise sayings and inspirational verses are found in the Bible—along with countless contradictions, scientific absurdities (complete with a Babylonian-style cosmos), failed prophecy (the Bible, itself, admitting to one), some historical errors (ones central to the story), and an incomprehensible “morality” requiring an army of apologists. Attempting to skirt obvious atrocities by appealing to God’s infinite mind empties the word “good” of any meaning. We might as well call God “evil” (though that term would also have no meaning for us). It is our standard of goodness that counts here, being that it is the only yardstick that we have for concluding that God is good. Apologetic tomes, invoking God’s infinite mind, excuse that for which there is no excuse. God must be judged as evil if our only yardstick for good and evil so measures him.
Those hefty apologetic tomes defending the Bible against all error rest on a fatal assumption: that absolute certainty is the standard. So any loophole will do. That’s fine for mathematics, chess, go, or checkers, whose postulates are accepted as starting points in a self-contained system governed by deductive logic. Since there is no logical connection to the messy, outside world there, absolute certainty is possible and is, therefore, the standard. Note, however, that such postulates (as givens) are neither true nor false. If you play chess you use one set of postulates (the rules); if you play checkers you use another. If you do Euclidean geometry you start with those postulates that define Euclidean geometry.
In the world of atoms and energy, however, the only meaningful standard is credibility, and it comes in shades of gray. A credible argument that stands tall above its competition wins. But don’t chisel it in stone! The conclusion is drawn, but new insight or evidence may undermine it.
It’s useful to look at an example of apologetic folly. The claim that Judas died by hanging himself over a cliff where the branch broke, such that he died by hanging and going splat, removes an apparent contradiction between two passages. But the claim lacks credibility even though it is logically possible. A good test is to cover, by turns, each of the two conflicting passages and see if the proposed rationalization arises naturally from the remaining context. Here it does not, so the best, objective conclusion is that we have a contradiction. Those hefty apologetic tomes are but ingenious exercises in loophole folly. Ad hoc patchwork carries no weight.
In the world of atoms and energy defining a contradiction as “A and not-A” is useless because it injects the neat world of logic into a messy reality. Everyday statements come with unspoken attachments. We must restore all reasonable attachments before deciding whether two statements contradict each other. Thus, the statement that Los Angeles has a population of 4 million does not necessarily contradict the statement that Los Angeles has a population of 3,898,000. The first statement is very likely a rounded-off figure, that unspoken attachment being very reasonable. Hence the full context must be evaluated. Certainty, once again, is not in the cards. We draw the best conclusion, but resist the temptation to chisel it into stone.
The Bible’s organization, if I may voice one last observation, is incredibly sloppy. A divine work admits of no wasted space. Zero! Yet, we find mindless duplication (2 Kings 19:1-37 is almost a word-for-word copy of Isaiah 37:1-38, and 2 Kings 20:1-19 is almost a carbon copy of Isaiah 38:1-8; 39:1-8). Thus whole chapters are essentially devoted to duplicating a dry account of King Hezekiah’s reign. Surely a divine author would have put that wasted space to better use!
We also find endless pages filled with rape, pillage, and slaughter that far exceed any conceivable need. More wasted space! Far worse, the instructions for salvation are scattered about the eight corners of the Bible, and they may be partial requirements at that. You can’t always tell. Identifying which verses pertain to salvation can also be problematic. (For example, the advice that Jesus gives to a particular individual may not apply to everyone.) No wonder there are so many Christian sects. God flunked Freshman Composition 1A!
Here’s the obvious fix: put all salvation material (and nothing but it) into a short chapter devoted to that task. Let those instructions appear nowhere else; let there be no duplication. Spell the requirements out, step by step, so that alternative readings have no credibility. Is that asking too much of an all-powerful, omniscient deity? After reading the Bible, I found myself moving briskly on the road to atheism.
My Main Argument for Rejecting All Gods
Now that you’ve seen some of my reasons for rejecting a host of gods, let me give you my reason for rejecting all of them: The alternative is to reject what we know best about our universe for the sake of rank speculation.
Consider the principles of nature, those “laws” of science. They have been tested again and again at widely varying locations over many years, under extreme conditions, by sophisticated, well-trained technicians using incredibly sensitive equipment. Within their proper limits, those laws yield an interlocking tapestry of coherent, comprehensive, consistent, ever-deepening knowledge that has taken us to the Moon and back. They have opened doors to the deepest mysteries of our universe.
Our understanding of nature’s laws may fall short at times, but that won’t help the theist. Those consistent and careful observations of the limitations of nature, from which natural laws are deduced, do not thereby disappear. When an old law is overthrown, usually by new observations under extreme or unusual conditions, we gain a fresh perspective. But those careful measurements whose interpretation gave rise to the old law are still facts, and they will take a seat under the wider umbrella of the new law.
Now consider the religious alternative, the claim that those universal principles may be violated at will by God (we’ll use the Christian God). God exists, but cannot be detected. God is all-powerful, contrary to the fact that energy is conserved (a fundamental principle underlying our understanding of reality). God knows all, contrary to Einstein’s special relativity. (Special relativity sets an upper speed limit, that of light in a vacuum. Since the transmission of knowledge involves particles or waves, special relativity rules out knowing about an event if not enough time has elapsed. An event on the Sun, for instance, cannot be known on Earth until about eight minutes have elapsed. For our furthest space probe, Voyager 1, that interval would be about 23.75 hours!) God is omnipresent, contrary to special relativity, since God’s internal communications must instantly span every point he occupies in space.
Extraordinary claims are made for God. How do we know these remarkable things about God? Because theologians have declared it so! God got his superpowers the same way that Superman did—by the stroke of a pen. A lot of pens, actually. Theologians writing in a prescientific age, when imagination ran wild, came up with the qualities that they thought their God ought to possess. Worse, the story of God’s powers has evolved over time, giving the current version of that story even less credibility. The Old Testament still preserves traces of an earlier version of God (Yahweh) riding among the clouds like Baal, fighting the primeval sea dragon of chaos, and hurling lightning like Zeus.
Claiming that these awkward verses are really wall-to-wall metaphors for typical observations, or just pure poetry, is absurd. Ancient Middle Eastern culture was populated by real gods who rode the clouds, heaved lightning, and performed other biblical acts. Poetry enlivened those accounts, but did not deny ancient reality. How else would ancient Middle Easterners interpret such verses? If their straightforward interpretation was not God’s intention, then he is quite limited. One of those limitations might be nonexistence! Theologians later deprived poor God of his body, whose backside was once seen by Moses, leaving us with a logical tangle of infinite powers. God’s powers began to look like a case of speculation run amok. Thus I moved further along the road towards atheism.
Perhaps, the theist might allege, I have underestimated the case for miracles. Reports of miracles—the violation of natural principles—are legion, but let the theist show us rigorous, scientific documentation of their occurrence. Where among the leading scientific journals do we find such documentation? Typical claims and anecdotal stories involving eyewitnesses, adequate food for flying saucer buffs, will not do. And the critic need not call upon hoaxes. An honest eyewitness may be subject to intense expectations that color perceptions, be confused by a brief, surprising event, or be biased by crowd expectations. Delusions due to poor health, drugs, or group pressure may prevail. Whole books have been written showing how easily people, even crowds, can be fooled. It’s shocking! The need for scientific rigor is absolutely necessary if a miracle is to be taken seriously. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Obviously, the objectively oriented mind must go with the well-tested principles of nature rather than rank speculation. We must build on a solid foundation. Thus we have the basis for ruling out all gods (or beings with supernatural powers). But, as always, objectively oriented minds are open to significant, new evidence should it appear.
“Not so fast!” cries the theist. Naturalists begin with their assumption that nature is all there is. Theists begin with a supernatural realm. If these are unproven starting points, why should one be better than the other?
But theists have a problem. An advocate for the supernatural realm must first accept the natural realm. If the natural world is but an illusion, then our background for recognizing the supernatural is lost. We cannot hope to recognize a supernatural event unless something is out of place in the natural world. Our starting point must be the natural world. Now the question becomes: do we have a good reason to go beyond it? Quantum electrodynamics, the foundation for chemistry, biology, and almost everything else, gives us no reason to look further. Neither does Einstein’s general theory of relativity. Problems do exist, but they appear to be due to incomplete knowledge. After all, we are on a scientific frontier. We expect a few puzzles. The history of science is full of puzzles that made sense once a better understanding was had. Consequently, science presently has no need to go beyond the natural world.
A question does arise. Can one even recognize a supernatural event? Perhaps any such event could be palmed off as an unexplained mystery due to our incomplete knowledge of natural law. Yet an event might so thoroughly wreck the basis for natural law as to render the case for a supernatural realm reasonable. Consider a swimming pool that instantly freezes solid the minute the last person leaves, complete with frozen bubbles spelling “Guess who?” Then, when someone steps on the ice, that person plunges into warm water. Such an event, repeated endlessly, would be so far out of whack with nature’s fundamental principles as to require their abandonment beyond any reasonable doubt. But if we have no reason for going beyond the natural realm, then we stay where we are.
Thus a supernatural realm is an extra layer of unneeded fat on top of naturalism—one best removed by Ockham’s razor. Imagining that the supernatural might exist hardly confers credibility. In short, compelling evidence is required to go beyond the natural world. As Carl Sagan pointed out, incredible claims require incredible evidence.
There is no need to assume dogmatically that nothing exists beyond our natural universe. Absence of compelling evidence for alternate realities removes any reason to go there. Anecdotal stories, unknown authors, and biased “investigations” (whose results are never replicated in reputable scientific journals) lack credibility. So far, science has had no need to go beyond the natural world.
God, Nature, and the Origin of the Universe
A common objection holds that God is above nature, being its creator, and cannot be constrained by it. But doesn’t that beg the question? The argument invokes God’s magical powers before establishing God’s credibility. God is defended by assuming that he exists. One should instead ask whether gods and their supernatural trappings are credible given the laws of nature—our strongest knowledge about the world of atoms and energy by actual test. If rigorously tested knowledge is not the foundation for investigating our world, then what is?
Mystical revelations fail because they never rise above their prophets, who often contradict one another. Gods who communicate through obscure prophets, when a whole world needs attention, lack credibility. The world’s sacred scriptures, offering wildly different stories, are best explained by multiple authors who knew nothing of wondrous galaxies, of penicillin, and of things that might give divine authorship some credibility. Holy books are invariably evolved products, modified numerous times to reflect a succession of beliefs, random assimilation, and religious politics. Evolved works are not the finished masterpieces we rightly expect from a divine author.
Again, we must go with what we know best by actual test. We may, as in the sciences, tentatively begin with a model arrived at by intuition or other means; but that explanatory model will have little credibility if not anchored in what we know best by actual test.
Another favorite retort declares that the universe could not have created itself. Something outside of nature—God—is needed. But isn’t this just a word game that atheists could play, too? A part of nature presently unknown to us, an eternal part with properties that allow it to generate Big Bang universes, is at least as credible as an eternal, omnipotent, omniscient being that must be fetched from some region beyond the natural world. Ockham’s razor surely favors sticking with nature.
Claiming that the origin of our universe can only be explained by invoking God is also an example of a classic error of reasoning known as an argument from ignorance. Not knowing an answer does not entitle us to claim that we do know the answer. One can’t pull God out of the hat without positive evidence. Might not further insight point to a better explanation? Given the current state of ignorance on cosmological matters, who can claim that no scientific answer will be forthcoming in the next 5,000 years? Either the theist has a really good crystal ball or is just guessing.
Indeed, to invoke God as an explanation before independently showing that it’s credible that such a being exists is to offer no explanation at all. But the whole point of the argument is to show that the God hypothesis is credible! We might just as easily claim that the universe had to be created by the great, green, Magical Spider.
Consider, finally, the concept of “nothing.” How could nothing exist before our universe began? If “nothing” excludes time, then there is no “before” and therefore no act of creation. More troubling, a state of pure nothingness seems to be meaningless. One might imagine a dark space with nothing in it, but one would still conceive of space and probably of time. A state consisting of absolutely “nothing” appears to be nonsensical and so could hardly precede the existence of the universe.
If a state of absolutely nothing (instead of an empty space made up of virtual particles and energy as understood by physicists) cannot exist, then the only alternative is that something has always existed. Some aspect of nature would be the logical choice. William Lane Craig’s argument that an “actual infinity” could not be crossed (think of traversing an infinite number of years) if the past were infinite would become irrelevant. (Come to think of it, an infinite past does not even allow one to cross an actual infinity since no moment of time in that past can be the start of such a trip. An infinite past has no starting point; one can’t start at a “beginning” that is infinitely far away.)
Conclusion
Here is the conclusion that I arrived at: credibility, not certainty, is the currency within the world of atoms and energy, the objective world known to be “out there” along with anything affecting it. Absolute proof is the currency of mathematics, chess, checkers, or any closed deductive logical system whose postulates are automatically accepted as starting points. (Subjective certainty is limited to individuals; objective proof is a group affair.) So there is no need to plug every loophole when rejecting supernatural gods. There is no need to probe an infinite mind supported by mere speculation. A highly credible argument, significantly above that of the competition, in a field not rapidly evolving (nor subject to surprises), takes all of the chips. That’s as good as it gets! Holding out for a pet idea that is possible (but inferior) abandons reason altogether. Good reasoning in the world of atoms and energy is the art and science of maximizing one’s chances of being right, of consistently choosing the probable over the merely possible.
We thus arrive at the surprising conclusion that it is absurdly easy, in principle, to rationally reject all gods and their supernatural trappings. Nothing is more credible than the well tested, consistent observations from which the laws of nature are derived. Compare that to the rank speculation of religion backed by anecdotal stories, confusion, and ancient accounts beyond meaningful examination. Credibility is a matter of having a good track record, and the scientific testing of natural principles has the best track record of all.
The traditional approach to debunking the God hypothesis, of staking out “incontestable” postulates and drawing the logical conclusions, is still valuable, but has a problem in that those postulates can always be tweaked by clever theists. Suddenly there are ten reasons why a benign God allows evil! It’s Whack-a-Mole time which, if exhaustively pursued, might finally push the fatigued theist into an uncomfortable corner. But who’s still counting? The cornered theist could still point to some ridiculous loophole and claim that the case against God has not been 100% proven. Once credibility is understood to be our yardstick for the natural world, one has the means to firmly reject all gods and their supernatural trappings. They can no longer be salvaged by pointing to insignificant loopholes since certainty is not the standard. Absolute certainty is meaningless in the natural world since every “proof” will have infinitely many loopholes. (To be on the safe side, maybe we should call the need to replace certainty with credibility in the natural world a strong, practical rule or heuristic.) That’s as good as it gets. Uncertainty cannot be totally banished, but it’s still a really good bet that the Sun will rise tomorrow; it’s also a really good bet that humanity created the gods. Therefore, I am an atheist, though my conclusion doesn’t get chiseled into stone since I must be open to new evidence, however unlikely it is to arise.