Bad Design
The faults in the design of the human eye, especially, show its evolutionary origins. [See eye diagram of retina.] When we study the retina at the back of the eye, we can see that the cell layers are backwards. Light has to travel thru seven layers of cells before reaching the light sensing cells. Then the signals go back thru these layers to the nerves on the inside surface. In addition, the blood vessels are on the inside surface and further block the light. A truly intelligent designer could have done better than the human eye. Actually, evolution did a better job with the eyes of birds (which have no blood vessels in the retina) and the octopus and squid (which have the light sensing cells on the surface).
In fact, vision is so useful for survival that eyes have evolved independently at least twenty separate times, with at least a dozen different designs.
Humans and other animals have many more examples of sub-optimal or bad designs. Here are a few:
One of the worst designs in mammals is the nerve for the larynx, called the recurrent laryngeal nerve. It's much longer than it needs to be — going from the brain into the chest, around the aorta, and back up to the larynx. In humans it's about three feet too long, but in giraffes it's about fifteen feet longer than needed. In most modern-day fish, there is no such detour; the nerve travels directly from the brain, past the heart, and to the gills. As mammals eventually evolved from fish, evolution simply lengthened the nerve - and it got "stuck" on the wrong side of the aortic arch. As Richard Dawkins put it, “evolution cannot go back to the drawing board. Evolution has no foresight.”
Here's how the recurrent laryngeal nerve is configured in humans:
Here's the nerve in giraffes (where it takes a long detour):
The human pelvis slopes forward, which was useful for our knuckle-walking ancestors. The only reason that we can walk upright is because we have an incredible sharp bend at the base of our spines (which is the source for so much low back pain). Our abdominal organs are even suspended from the spine, which is just a vestigial holdover from when the spine was actually above them.
The human baby's skull is too big, such that many women die painfully in childbirth if they don't get modern medicine.
Lab Experiments
Many people think that science requires lab experiments, which is a gross misunderstanding of science. The Theory of Evolution doesn't need lab experiments for verification; it has the entire history of life on Earth. It is a bonus that successful lab experiments have been done, using random mutation and survival of the fittest to create new bacteria. Scientists at the Brookhaven National Laboratory developed new strains of bacteria that live in harsh environments while consuming carbon-rich materials such as oil and coal. There are also new strains of bacteria (using new enzymes) that can digest byproducts of nylon manufacture.
A Bottom-Up Process
The Theory of Evolution explains embryological quirks, vestigial organs, and other bad designs. It also explains how order and complexity (like eyes and new enzymes) can grow from simplicity. Over billions of years, evolution has resulted in the vast array of species on our planet, with their many complex organs and traits. We understand how biological patterns emerge. Climbing Mount Improbable, by Richard Dawkins, shows how highly intrinsically improbable features of organisms can come about thru very small (and possible) evolutionary steps. Daniel Dennett explains, in Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life, how evolution is the central organizing natural process that gives rise to complexity. Evolution doesn't require a top-down designer; it is a bottom-up process that results in complexity and order naturally emerging from simplicity. For a short video about evolution, see "What is the Evidence for Evolution?." For much more, check out the PBS series "Your Inner Fish, with Neil Shubin," or read his book with the same title.
Like any scientific theory, the Theory of Evolution is falsifiable. Here's a list by Jerry Coyne of things that would falsify evolution:
Fossils in the wrong place (e.g., mammals in the Devonian)
Adaptations in one species good only for a second species
A general lack of genetic variation in species
Adaptations that could not have evolved by a step-by-step process of ever-increasing fitness
The observation that most adaptations of individuals are inimical for individuals or their genes but good for populations/species
Evolved “true” altruistic behavior among non-relatives in non-social animals
Complete discordance between phylogenies (evolutionary history of groups) based on morphology/fossils and on DNA
Dr. Coyne wrote, “We don’t see any of these anomalies, and so the theory of evolution is on solid ground.” As he said in his book Why Evolution is True, “Despite a million chances to be wrong, evolution always comes up right. That’s as close to a scientific truth as we can get.”
Evolution is thus both a fact and a scientific theory. It is a fact that species have evolved. The Theory of Evolution explains our best understanding of the processes that cause evolution. It's a lot like gravity. Gravity is obviously a fact. The theory of gravity is our best understanding of how gravity works.
“Only a Theory”
People often say that evolution is “only a theory.” It’s important to remember that the term “theory” in science is not the same as it is in general usage. A scientific theory is a unifying concept that explains a large body of data. It is a hypothesis that has withstood the test of time and the challenge of opposing views. The Theory of Evolution is the basic unifying concept of biology. The CEO of The American Association for the Advancement of Science, Alan Leshner, wrote, “Although scientists may debate details of the mechanisms of evolution, there is no argument among scientists as to whether evolution is taking place.” The National Academy of Sciences, the most prestigious scientific organization in the United States, has declared evolution “one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have,” and notes that evolution is supported by an overwhelming scientific consensus. The Theory of Evolution has as much validity as the theory of gravity, atomic theory, or the germ theory of disease. It's interesting to note that the idea that the Earth goes around the sun is also a scientific theory — albeit one with extensive evidence. Every day our eyes are deceived, when we see the sun rising and setting as it apparently goes around the Earth.
There is an underlying problem with the design argument, and most proponents of Intelligent Design probably aren’t aware of it. By assuming that living things have some sort of metaphysical purpose, they are intrinsically assuming what they want to prove. Purpose is an abstract human concept that exists only in our minds, much like beauty — with no physical reality. In the universe things have no intrinsic purpose; they just exist. Does an atom have any purpose? Does a pebble? Does a star? Does an amoeba, plant or any living thing have a real external purpose? We could say that living things have the purpose of procreating to continue their species. However, we must realize that this is just our viewpoint, our interpretation. Rocks, trees, people, stars, and the universe have no intrinsic purpose. We can create purpose for ourselves, and that is good because it's a useful concept; but it’s important to understand that purpose is a human construct. Remember, when proponents of ID begin their arguments by noting the design and purpose of nature, they are assuming what they want to prove. Don’t be fooled by this logic sleight of hand. No intelligent designer is needed for purpose to exist, because purpose exists only in our minds.
Having Your God and Evolution Too
Many theists think that they can integrate their all-loving god with the reality of evolution. This idea is called "theistic evolution." Altho it is not antagonistic to science (because no sufficiently hidden god can be disproved by science), the idea fails theologically. Evolution is often a nasty, brutal process. An all-loving, all-powerful god could certainly do better. Greta Christina has an excellent article explaining this in depth: "Why You Can't Reconcile God and Evolution."
Abiogenesis
Even more basic than evolution is the field of science called abiogenesis, which deals with the origins of life from non-life. Simple experiments have shown that amino acids, the molecular units that make up proteins, can be made in lab conditions simulating Earth’s early atmosphere, and they are even found in outer space. The other critical molecular types — lipids, carbohydrates, and nucleotides — can also result from natural chemical processes. These molecules are not living, but abiogenesis scientists are learning many ways that life could have originated from them.
Dr. Jack Szostak, winner of the 2009 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, has shown how primitive protocells could form with lipids as a cellular wall and a self-polymerizing nucleotide inside. These could grow and divide driven purely by physics, chemistry, and thermodynamics. Evolution could take it from there.
Many abiogenesis researchers think that life or its precursors could have started as RNA, and then evolved to DNA. A very interesting experiment showed that life-like evolution can occur in a test tube, with synthesized RNA enzymes that can replicate themselves without the help of any proteins or other cellular components. It's not biology, but it shows how evolutionary processes can happen in non-living molecules.
Remember that Earth had billions of years and countless environments to create life, while scientists have only been trying since the 1950's. I think that we’ve made good progress. And, even if we're not smart enough to understand the origin of life (or anything else), that doesn't mean that some god did it.
For more, see articles and websites listed in our “Abiogenesis” science section.
Evolution of Our View of Our Place in the Universe
A basis for the creationism idea is the concept that humans are at the center of the universe. The idea of a god used to make some sense, when people thought that the Earth was the unmoving center of creation, and humans were the reason that there was an Earth and everything else. The biblical universe was much simpler then. The flat Earth was at the base, and above was the vast solid dome called the firmament. It contained the stars and held back the celestial waters. Above that were Heaven and God:
We now know that the universe is almost unimaginably immense, complex, and ancient. It is the height of conceit for humans to believe that this whole universe was made just for us. Our perspective has changed. We are no longer at the center of the universe — not our planet, not our star, and not our galaxy. As people grow and mature, one of the big realizations is that they aren’t at the center. It is the same for our species; it is time for us to realize that we are not at the center either.
It is also necessary to note that in order for Intelligent Design to be true, these areas of science would be largely false: evolutionary biology, paleobiology, cosmology, astronomy, physics, paleontology, archeology, historical geology, zoology, botany, and biogeography, plus much of early human history. These fields of science make predictions and get results. ID makes no verifiable predictions and gets no useful results, and thus cannot in any way be called a science. A simple example of this is the field of oil exploration, where you won’t find any geologists using creationism or ID — because they don’t get results. And, with large amounts of money at stake, the companies want results.
The most common reason people give for why they believe in God is the apparent design of the world. I think that this is part of why proponents of ID are putting so much energy into promoting their view and attempting to refute evolution. They realize that if the design argument were to fall, people might rethink their belief in God.
Many people say things like, “Isn't that baby cute?” or, “Isn't that sunset beautiful? There MUST be a god.” I think that, if they are going to give their god credit for the apparent good and beauty in the world, they should also give their god credit for the evil and ugliness — such as natural disasters, babies with birth defects, and all the diseases. The morality of nature shows its evolutionary heritage. What loving, intelligent designer would have invented the diseases of the world, including a parasite that blinds millions of people and a gene that covers babies with excruciating blisters? This is part of the Problem of Evil, which I will cover later.
For more, see articles and websites listed in our “Evolution” science section.
Origin of Consciousness
Some people claim that consciousness is too mysterious or complex to be explained scientifically, therefore a god is necessary. Consciousness certainly is complex, and we probably can't completely understand it — in part because it is so subjective; but that doesn't mean that some god is its source any more that we need a god to explain the weather. Consciousness is an emergent property of a sufficiently complex living brain. Anyone who has had a mammal as a pet knows that animals can think and emote. They may not think as well as we do, because their brains aren’t as complex as ours, but they definitely think and even dream. Biology also shows us that many mammals have brains that are very similar to ours — differing only in sizes of the functional sections. Even simple animals such as worms show a very limited consciousness by responding to their environment. The more complex the brain, the more complex the consciousness. We also know that when a person’s brain is damaged the person can lose part of his consciousness. The sad cases where the brain is extremely damaged can result in a “persistent vegetative state” with no consciousness. A god isn’t necessary to explain consciousness; functioning complex brains are.
Argument from Love
Where does love come from? Many religionists say that evolution can't explain love, that we need a god as the source for love.
Evolution actually explains love very simply. In primitive hunter/gatherer human societies (and even for many other mammals) it is strongly advantageous for a couple to stay together to raise their offspring. It's beneficial even in modern societies, altho ** not as critically. Without love a couple is less likely to stay together. Without love they would be far less likely to keep raising their children when things are difficult. With love, children are more likely to be loving themselves — to others and eventually to their own children. Love also helps bind extended families and friends, who can help in raising the children. Any humans who didn't love were less likely to have descendants. Any humans who did love were more likely to have descendants. Evolution has programmed us for love.
The feelings of love can certainly be wonderful, and they are created in our bodies by hormones. One of these is oxytocin, which is produced during sex and in breastfeeding women. It acts as a neurotransmitter in the brain and can create strong feelings of attachment and love.
We also see actions in other mammals that have all the indications of love. Mothers care for, feed, protect, and train their young. Wolves and elephants are especially known for forming pair and group bonds. Elephants even display compassion and altruism.
Argument from Morality
How about morality? Some people say that we need an absolute morality, and that we all have a sense of morality. They say that the only possible source for this morality is their god.
Many people have claimed that humans could not have created morality, that there is nothing in evolution or history that mandates it. This is wrong. In order for any social species to function, implicit or explicit rules of interaction are necessary. This is the basic function of morality — implicit rules of interaction that allow us to function cooperatively.
Some have even claimed that humans could not have had the concept of morality. I don’t see why not. We’re fairly intelligent. Human minds have created many ideas that are far more complex than morality. Why should morality be different?
The idea that we humans didn't create morality — that it came from some god — is insulting to us.
Explaining morality and altruistic behavior is not a problem, when we understand that humans are social animals. In order to survive, we mainly need to work together in groups. Groups of our distant ancestors that had individuals who worked together were more likely to succeed. Individuals who didn't cooperate in a group might have been kicked out of the group, and had their survival severely threatened. Groups that kept non-cooperative individuals were less likely to succeed. Laws are the explicit rules of interaction. Morality and laws are human constructs that come from basic human empathy, kindness and compassion, a desire to treat others as we wish to be treated, and our need to work together — not from some ancient static scriptures. Morality and laws have evolved as humans have evolved our culture. We are social animals evolved by natural selection, so the great majority of us will naturally desire the health of our families and the peace of our communities. Evolution has programmed us socially and biologically for morality and cooperation. Our morality comes out of our humanity.
For god-fearing religions, the only reason to be moral is the child's (or a slave's) concept of morality — be good or you will be punished. For healthy non-believers, we can see that altruistic behavior and morality grow out of the knowledge that making others happy makes us happy.
Even other primates such as chimpanzees, monkeys, and apes exhibit empathy and morality. For more about this, see “Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior.”
Of course, the natural world is not loving or moral, along with many humans. We thus have the continual dilemma of how to survive with this conflict, using our natural self-interest.
If people claim that their god is the source of morality, they are faced with defining morality and whether it is dependent on their god. Plato said it best, “Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?” If it's the former then God is not needed. If it's the latter then morality depends on God's whim, and ethics are unnecessary.
Let’s look at what happens when people claim to get absolute morality from a god or his “holy” book. I say that such religious absolutists don’t have morality; what they have is a code of obedience — which is not the same. This god sets what is supposedly moral, and they obey. If this god were to say that murder and theft were moral, theists would have to kill and steal to act morally. Actually, this is exactly what is happening with the suicide bombers in the Middle East. This is also what was behind the Crusades, the Inquisitions and 9/11. The fact that we find this so abhorrent shows that morality does not come from a god. Gods fail as a source of morality.
Many religious people like to claim that non-believers have relative morality, while they have absolute morality. However, since no Christians or Jews are stoning those who work on the Sabbath, and no Muslims are slaying transgressors wherever they catch them, they are choosing which “holy” laws to follow and which to ignore. We all have relative morality.
For Christians, if their morality is based on fear of punishment from their god then they have an “out” where they can be absolved of their sins (usually by an appropriate Earthly authority). This is a good marketing scheme, but it makes for flimsy moral system of punishment and reward.
Monotheistic religions typically define most or all of morality as dealing with humans and their “sins” against their god. People are then moral to each other only to obey their god and escape his punishment. This ignores the concept of morality that deals directly with the consequences of our actions on other people or conscious beings. This morality is about the reality of our impact on others, not on our relationship with an imaginary god who can be appeased with a few magic words.
A large philosophical problem that religious moralists face is where to get the word of their god or gods. They can get it from “divine” revelation or from supposedly “holy” books. Each of these sources faces a problem; how do we know that this is the true word of the god? I’ve already discussed revelation, so let’s look at the idea of a holy book. I am most familiar with the Christian Bible, so that’s what I’ll address.
The Bible is touted by many as a source of ultimate knowledge and morality. It is said to be God’s perfect words to humankind. Have you ever read it? It contradicts itself in many places, is often difficult or impossible to interpret, and is largely simply boring. Some of it looks to me like it was written under the influence of hallucinogens. It contains two very different lists of Ten Commandments (in three sets) and three sets of paternal ancestors for Jesus (with one lineage just being the Holy Ghost). The better-known set of Ten Commandments (given in Exodus 20:2-17 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21) even says that children can be punished for the sins of their great-grandfathers! The lesser-known set (in Exodus 34:12-27) tells us to not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk. Are these the words of a perfect moral being?
The Christian Bible is also conflicted about homosexuality. Altho there are notoriously anti-gay verses, 1 Samuel 18:1-3 clearly refers to two men loving each other. Even the Jesus character is hinted at as being gay in John 20:2. This shows that Christians have little to stand on when they try to push their religion's view of sexuality on the rest of us. Their logic is based on the primitive concept that we don't want to make their (all-loving?) god angry, or he's going to do something bad to us.
Many Christians think that the Bible supports “traditional” marriage. However, nowhere does it clearly state “only one man and one woman” or “monogamy” or any words to that effect, but references to abstinence and polygamy are plentiful.
The Bible also has the purported histories of many rapes, slaughters, and other mass killings, most of them directed or condoned by the god Yahweh. They even note how pregnant women were sliced open — so much for Yahweh being against abortion. In one well-known story, Yahweh drowned almost everyone and everything on the planet merely because he didn’t like the activities of some of the people (that he had created). In another story, 42 children were killed in the name of Yahweh, just for calling a man bald. In addition, the Bible has more than 50 listings of death penalties — some for supposed “sins” that most of us don’t even consider to be morally wrong, such as working on the Sabbath or eating blood. Do these tales and penalties show the actions of a loving god? The god of the Old Testament is a capricious, petty, pathological, vindictive, schizophrenic, mass-murdering tyrant — not a paragon of moral virtue. And, Satan often comes off as the good guy. After all, how many people did Satan kill? The god of the New Testament is a little nicer, as described by the character Jesus. But Jesus and this god also introduced eternal punishment — not a very kind or loving thing to do. This New Testament god also kept the idea of a human blood sacrifice, even demanding it of his own son. If you still think that morality should come from the Christian Bible, I ask, what do you think about slavery and child abuse? Not once in the entire Bible is slavery or child abuse (other than child sacrifice) condemned, not even in the writings about Jesus. In fact both are condoned in many places; there are over 20 verses on slavery and over 30 verses advocating child abuse. Even the Jesus character had recommendations about whipping and chopping up slaves. It's obvious that any kind person could do a better job of defining morals than what is in the Bible.
Since morality changes from the Old Testament to the New Testament, the Bible is not an infallible source for morality — and morality is not absolute. The Christian Bible, its god, and its savior all fail the morality test. Sam Harris has done an excellent job of demolishing “Christian morality.” Mr. Deity has a more humorous take.
Jesus died for our sins. This is one of the primary moral points of Christianity, and it is glorified human sacrifice, or formally known as atonement or substitutive sacrifice. The story of the sacrifice of Jesus and the release of Barabbas is just a re-telling of the ancient Hebrew action of scapegoating, as explained in Leviticus 16. Many other religions have also practiced substitutive sacrifice when they killed sacrificial animals or humans. What kind of morality is this, where an animal or person has to die because of what others have done (or will do)? When we look at cultures that sacrificed humans, we call them barbaric and primitive. It makes no difference if the person being sacrificed agrees; it is still blatantly, repugnantly immoral and abominable. The Christian ceremony of communion is based on this blood sacrifice, and is just ritualized cannibalism and vampirism. Note also that the Roman Catholic Church's doctrine of transubstantiation holds that during communion the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Christ. This doctrine makes Leviticus 7:27 problematic, because it calls for the execution of those who eat blood.
Using religion as a source for morality completely collapses when we look at religious positions now and in history. There are religious people with different positions on such moral issues as the death penalty, abortion, birth control, and gay and women’s rights. How can this be, if they all get the same divine words from the same god? Restrictions on birth control have added to the misery in the world by causing more disease and more births on a planet that already has too many people. Racism, misogyny, and slavery were once considered perfectly moral by large portions of humankind, and were seen as having a religious basis. Also, the killings done in the names of different gods, by most religions, are legendary. Our culture and laws have changed, and these evils are no longer acceptable in modern society. Religion cannot give us reliable answers to moral issues. Morality is a social and legal construct, not a religious one. Religion and gods fail as sources of morality.
Sam Harris, in his book, The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values shows that we don't need religions or imaginary gods to determine objective morality. If we define morality in terms of human and animal well-being, Sam argues that science can do more than tell how we are; it can, in principle, tell us how we ought to behave.
Argument from Authority
I think that most people begin their belief in a god because a book or someone said that a particular god exists. This is called the “argument from authority.” The next section will discuss using people as authorities. The three best known books used as sources for religions are the Quran for the Muslims, the Bible for Christians, and the Torah for the Jews.
I've collected a few quotes from the Quran, to show some of its weaknesses.
The Christian Bible includes the Jewish Torah as part of its “Old Testament.” Is it a reasonable source? We've already examined some of its moral faults. Let's look at its historical veracity.
People say that archeological evidence shows that some places and people mentioned in the Bible really existed; therefore the Bible is true. This is like saying that Gone With the Wind is true because the Civil War actually occurred. Let’s first look at four biblical personages — Moses, Abraham, King Herod the Great, and Jesus — and the biblical town of Nazareth.
There is no reliable, extra-biblical reference to Moses or Abraham, and they are likely apocryphal. In fact, there is no reliable evidence that the Jews/Israelites were ever in Egypt. Even Israeli archaeologists have acknowledged this, (and Israel has the most to gain from a divine land grant).
Did Jesus Exist?
Like most people (especially those raised Christian, like I was), I had always assumed that Jesus had really existed, even though he may not have been divine. After examining the biblical, extra-biblical, and early Christian evidence, I have concluded that there is no reliable evidence that Jesus actually existed — and significant evidence that he was purely mythical.
The earliest known references to Jesus are in the writings of Paul (ne Saul), who had a 'vision' of Jesus while he was on the road to Damascus. Paul's writings are part of the epistles, which are thought to have been written after 50 CE*. If there had been an actual Jesus, Paul should have known much about his life. He didn't. Paul and the other epistle writers (including Peter) don't seem to have known any biographical details of Jesus' life, or even the time of his earthly existence. They don't mention Bethlehem, Nazareth, Galilee, Calvary or Golgotha. They also don't mention any miracles that Jesus was supposed to have worked, his baptism, his moral teachings, his trial, or the empty tomb.
The main biblical references to Jesus are in the gospels, which were written by unknown authors after 70 CE (and quite possibly decades later). In a semi-literate and superstitious society, that's a long time after Jesus' supposed life — a long time for myths to grow. Most scholars agree that the first mention of what we call the gospels was by Justin Martyr in about 150 CE, altho he didn't refer to them by their current names. The earliest gospel, now known as Mark, betrays its author's lack of knowledge of the geography and social situation of Palestine — showing that the author was not a local. (Mark 5:1-13, Mark 11:1, Mark 10:12) Why do Mark and John begin with Jesus already a grown man — with no virgin birth, magic star, or other childhood stories? If the gospels were written by eyewitnesses, why don't they describe Jesus? Why are they written in third person format (like a story), instead of first person format? Why do the gospels of Matthew and Luke plagiarize up to 90% of Mark (and add the childhood stories)? The gospel of John hardly refers to Jesus as a real person with a real life. Like Paul, the author viewed Jesus as more of a sky-god.
An example of story-telling is Matthew 2:16, which refers to the supposed “slaughter of the innocents” by King Herod (74 BCE – 4 BCE). This event is not mentioned by any historian of the time (or even other gospel authors), and is thus a complete fabrication which fulfilled a common story line for saviors.
As for the extra-biblical historicity of Jesus, there is absolutely no reliable contemporary evidence that he ever even existed. He made no impression on any historian of the first century. If Jesus existed and if the spectacular events in the gospels really happened, they would have been noted by many writers — including Philo of Alexandria, Seneca the Elder, Pliny the Elder, Justus of Tiberius, and over thirty others. None of these men referred to Jesus or the fantastical biblical events. The earliest extra-biblical supposed references to Jesus or Christ are in one paragraph and one sentence in the writings (about 93 CE) attributed to the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (who also wrote about Hercules), and the Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus (about 117 CE). However, there is overwhelming evidence that they were added much later. The reference by Josephus was almost certainly created by “church historian” Eusebius, who first referred to it in about 324 CE — for Emperor Constantine's Council of Nicea. The reference by Tacitus was probably added in the 1400's (likely in 1468 by Johannes de Spire of Venice), because no mention is made to it in any known text prior to then.
The Jesus story also shows extensive similarities to other myths of the time (especially Dionysus, Mithra, and Horus). Some early Christians attributed this to Satan who went back in time and created the religions that "copied" Christianity. Jesus is worshiped on Sunday because he is a sun god, like Mithra, Zeus/Jupiter, Horus, Attis, Dionysus, Adonis, Tammuz, Hercules, Perseus, Bacchus, Apollo, Helios, and Sol Invictus — whose birthdays are also on the old winter solstice of December 25, when the sun is “reborn.” There were more than a dozen other deities and saviors who were resurrected after violent deaths — Mithra, Osiris/Serapis, Inanna/Ishtar, Horus, Perseus, Bacchus, Attis, Hermes, Adonis, Hercules/Heracles, Tammuz, Asclepius, and Prometheus. Christianity just told the story the best, and managed to get control of the government under Constantine I.
So, let's look at the evidence we have. From the earliest Christian writers such as Paul, we have little to indicate that Jesus was a real person. And, we have strong evidence that he was just a spiritual sky-god to them. From the later (and unknown) writers of the gospels, we have a story that grew over time, with more fantastical events added as the story was told and re-told — just like a myth. From the historians of the first century we have nothing, and they would have written about him if he existed.
For a deeper look into these ideas, see "Did Jesus Really Exist?".
It's also interesting that the Prophet Muhammad may not have actually existed. Muhammad Sven Kalish, an Islamic theologian, came to that conclusion after he studied the historical evidence for the prophet's life.
Science vs. Religion
One large difference between science and religion is this: In science, if the facts don’t fit the theory, the theory is modified or tossed out. In religion, if the facts don’t fit the theory, the facts are often tossed out. All too often, people reject evidence and the findings of science because they conflict with their religious assumptions. With their minds thus unhinged from the real world, they can have problems distinguishing fantasy from reality.
What does i t mean, when we believe something based on an authority? It means that we are taking something or someone else’s words as truth, without a real knowledge ourselves. We all do this for many subjects. Our first authorities are the people who raise us. This is because we are born with no innate knowledge of the world, and have to learn it from scratch. To help us learn quickly, our brains are wired in childhood to largely believe without question what we are taught. We quickly absorb whatever our parents teach us — including their religion. For most people, their parents' religion thus becomes the “one true religion” — as most of us know from experience and as shown by many studies.
We soon start learning from other sources, such as friends, teachers, books and other written material. As we learn and experience our world, we develop a map in our minds of what the world is like. This map becomes a truth filter. When we look at a new idea, we typically compare it to the mental map that we have. If the idea fits well in the map, we can add it. If the idea doesn’t fit, we have a problem. We must either discard the idea, or make a change to the map. Change is difficult and often painful, so many people tend to discard ideas that don’t fit their mental maps.
When we use someone or something as an authority, we often bypass the comparison process and plug the new ideas directly into our maps. This can save us a lot of research time and mental work. However, it also opens us to believing in things and ideas that aren’t true. Since we can’t be experts on everything, we thus have a problem — what and whom can we implicitly believe? For me, since I want my mental map to be as accurate as possible, I have chosen the methods of science and reason as my ultimate authority. Science and reason have been shown to be the best predictors of how the world functions. Science and reason aren’t perfect, but they are self-correcting — using the scientific method. Other sources of authority are too prone to misinformation.
Altho we should not use them as authorities, it's interesting that 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences do not believe in God.
Argument from Prophecy and Miracles
Now, let’s discuss prophecies and miracles. I am continually astounded at just how little evidence people are willing to accept for proof of these. Prophecies that did come true are often easy to explain, once you understand that it’s easy to predict something if it has already occurred, or that actions were done merely to fulfill prophecy, or that events or prophesies were fabricated. There are also many prophesies that haven’t come true. As for religious miracles, the evidence is so slim that they should be relegated to hearsay.
One ‘miracle’ that many people use is their own (or that of someone else) survival from a dangerous episode, or recovery from a disease or injury. They rarely seem to note that many others have not been so lucky. It's as if their god loves only them (and perhaps their family), and doesn't care about the others. Of course, we never hear from people who almost survived a car wreck, airplane crash, or disease; we only hear from those who survive. I call this the “survivor's logical fallacy.” The generic term is the “anecdotal logical fallacy”.
Also consider the idea that, if a person believes that their god can do miracles, their god also chooses not to do miracles. Yahweh could have stopped the Catholic priests from raping young chidren under their care, but chose not to. Perhaps Yahweh has had more important concerns, such as deciding which high school football teams won in games where both sides prayed for divine help.
Even if truly inexplicable ‘prophesies’ or ‘miracles’ have occurred, that does not mean that there’s a god. It could just mean that a person has peculiar skills or technological help that we don’t understand. We all can imagine how easy it would be to go to a primitive tribe of humans and impress them with ‘god-like’ skills that are the result of our technology, medicine, or knowledge. It is reasonable to consider that we could be fooled by technology that is far in advance of our own. As famous science fiction author Sir Arthur C. Clarke wrote, “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”
Let’s consider one well-known ‘miracle,’ the resurrection of Jesus Christ. First, as I noted, there is no verifiable evidence that Jesus ever even lived. Second, even if he did exist, there is obviously no evidence that he actually died on the cross. If Jesus didn't die, his supposed ‘resurrection’ was much more possible in a purely natural sense. Some people think that the martyrdom of his followers proves the resurrection of Jesus. At best, it simply proves their bull-headed beliefs, not actual fact. At worst, they were fictional characters or deluded people. Recent examples of deluded followers are the Jonestown and Heaven's Gate mass suicides. We don't think that they proved anything.
As I've noted, the story of Jesus’ lineage is also confusing. If Joseph didn’t father Jesus, then why does the Bible show Joseph’s ancestors — with two different lists? The historical reason for the conflicting stories of Jesus' lineage lies in the fact that the idea of the virgin birth (with the “Holy Ghost” as the father) was added later. The original story had Jesus descended from David (thru Joseph), to fulfill prophecy.
Another prophecy that was supposedly fulfilled by the character Jesus was the idea that he came from Nazareth. This resulted from an unknown gospel writer's confusion between Nazirite, Nazarene and Nazareth.
I've found three excellent quotes that sum up the problem of prophecy and miracles well:
“No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle unless that testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavours to establish.”
— David Hume, Of Miracles (1748)
“Is it more probable that nature should go out of her course, or that a man should tell a lie? We have never seen, in our time, nature go out of her course; but we have good reason to believe that millions of lies have been told in the same time; it is, therefore, at least millions to one, that the reporter of a miracle tells a lie.”
— Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason (1794)
“It is a fact of history and of current events that human beings exaggerate, misinterpret, or wrongly remember events. They have also fabricated pious fraud. Most believers in a religion understand this when examining the claims of other religions.”
— Dan Barker, in "Did Jesus Really Rise From The Dead?"
With these insights in mind, which is more likely — that true prophesies and miracles have actually occurred, or that they are just tall tales?
Argument from Religious Faith
Next, let’s look at religious faith. What is faith? It is the firm belief in something for which no proof exists — simply because you want it to be true. I think that faith is belief without evidence, or pretending to know things you don’t know. The Bible, in Hebrews 11:1, gives this definition: “Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.” Religious faith is not inhibited by reason or evidence, does not help us discern the difference between truth and falsehood, and can thus be used to justify any proposition. As Mark Twain once said, “Faith is believing what you know ain’t so.” Religious faith proves nothing, except the bullheadedness of the believer. If you have faith, you don’t need proof. If you have proof, you don’t need faith. Therefore, any attempt to use faith as a basis for proof is intrinsically doomed to failure. Also, what good is faith if it has you believing in something that is not true? A recent example of absolute faith and its possible consequences illustrates the objective failures of religious faith. I ask, on September 11, 2001, whose faith was the most effective? I say that it was the faith of the suicidal pilots of those three planes that crashed into the buildings. If you believe in the primacy of religious faith, there is no way to objectively differentiate between yours and theirs, for it is all purely subjective. Religious faith fails as a proof for a god.
Dan Barker, of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, wrote, “If faith is a valid tool of knowledge, then anything can be true 'by faith,' and therefore nothing is true. If the only reason you can accept a claim is by faith, then you are admitting that the claim does not stand on its own merits.”
If there were one true god, there should be one true religion — and it's obvious that this isn't true. The theistic world is divided into several different main religions, each of which is divided into smaller groups. And, many of those are divided into even smaller groups. The Christian faith, for instance, is divided into over 33,000 denominations.
For anyone who believes that they believe in the one true god and have the one true religion, the fact that many others believe very differently should cause cognitive dissonance; but it doesn't seem to. This shows the solipsism-style power of religion.
Religious faith is the antithesis of rational thought. This is why so many religious leaders actively preach against rational thought and even advanced education. They realize that rational thought and education can destroy religious faith and result in fewer followers and less money for them. They know that children are best indoctrinated — before the brain is developed enough to separate fantasy from reality.
Many good theists think that they can have both religious faith and rational thought, by being moderates and not fundamentalists. Altho this certainly makes for a better pluralistic society, moderates enable the fundamentalists by preventing rational examination of religion, which the moderates and the fundamentalists would lose. Also, the fundamentalists often view themselves as the true followers of the faith. They see the moderates as religious failures because they don't really follow the edicts of the religion, but mix in secular/worldly values. And, even Jesus didn't like moderates.
Logical Arguments for God(s)
How about logical arguments for the existence of God? Let’s look at a set of proofs for God that relies on reason alone. It is called the Ontological Argument, and it comes in at least three forms. The first basically says that God exists because we can conceive of God. One of the characteristics of God is existence; therefore, God exists. The second form begins with the definition that God is perfect. Existence is more perfect than non-existence (whatever that means), therefore God must exist. The third form defines God as the creator of the universe. Since the universe exists, God must exist. These arguments are so obtuse and unfalsifiable that they are ridiculous. They just involve confusion between the existence of ideas and the existence of real things. Simply saying that something like a god exists does not make it exist. All that exist are the ideas (in our minds) of Satan, Jesus, God, an invisible pink unicorn, and many other concepts.
There are some people who claim that God is the source of logic, therefore we can’t even use logic without presupposing the existence of God. They say that logic can’t be created from unformed matter; therefore God formed the matter and created logic. This argument is known as Presuppositionalist, or the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God. The names are fancy, and my response is simple. We made the rules of logic up, just like we made up the rules of mathematics. Logic is a pattern of thinking, and patterns can emerge from simple rules. There are many examples of complex patterns coming out of simple rules, such as snowflakes and waves forming. There is nothing in our everyday experience that indicates that some higher power is necessary for these patterns, and there is nothing that proves that a god is necessary for the patterns we call logic. Additionally, the Presuppositionalist Argument gives little indication as to the qualities of the god it presupposes — much like the First Cause and Ontological arguments. The Presuppositionalist Argument is just another way of answering a supposedly difficult question with the simple response, “God did it.”
If anything is not logical, it is most religions. I am most familiar with Christianity, so let’s look at its basic claims:
A supernatural god exists that created everything and intervenes in the natural world.
This god had a son whose mother was a virgin who had been impregnated by the god in the form of a ghost.
This son did many miracles, including making a dead person alive again.
This son was killed, and came back to life one and a half (not three) days later.
There is not any empirical, verifiable evidence for any of this. There is also much experience from everyday life that virgins can’t get pregnant from ghosts, and that people who have been dead for a while can’t come back to life. Thus, belief in the above claims is illogical.
Pascal’s Wager
There is an argument for belief in God that is called Pascal’s Wager, named for Blaise Pascal who conceived it. The argument goes like this: Either there is a god or there isn’t. If you believe in God, and God exists, then you win big time and go to Heaven. If you don’t believe in God, and God exists, you lose big time and go to Hell. If there is no god, then you haven’t lost much by believing. So the obvious choice is to believe in God, because it’s simply the best bet.
Pascal’s Wager has several faults. The biggest problem is that it’s not a proof of any god’s existence; it’s just an argument for believing, a method of extorting the gullible thru fear. Like many other such arguments we have discussed, it also fails to denote exactly which god it refers to. Pascal’s Wager could be applied to any god that offers rewards and punishments. Taken to the extreme, following the wager would necessitate betting on the god with the worst hell, so it could be avoided. It's impossible to know which god to worship, and which (perhaps jealous) gods to spurn. I doubt if many Christians would convert to Islam if the wager were presented by a Muslim who told them that Muslim Hell is worse than Christian Hell, and Muslim Heaven is better than Christian Heaven.
Pascal’s Wager assumes that the chosen god's mind is knowable, and that he doesn't mind people believing in him for explicitly selfish reasons. Perhaps he actually prefers independent thinkers such as atheists, not obsequious followers. Since the Christian god Yahweh is on record as having lied, there's no way to know his intentions. It would be quite possible for a true believer to discover on Judgment Day that the destination was not Heaven. Yahweh, in his infinitely mysterious ways, had other plans; and there would be no appeal or debate with an omnipotent being.
Another problem with Pascal’s Wager is that it implicitly assumes that the odds of the two possibilities are similar. Since the odds of the Christian, Jewish, or Muslim god existing are zero, the wager creates a false dilemma. The wager even goes against the doctrine that many religions have where gambling is sinful. Note also that the existence of the wager and the fact that so many people think that it's relevant illuminate the lack of actual evidence for God.
Pascal’s Wager also depends on the idea that you don’t lose much by believing. This has been false for many who have trusted in their god for help or guidance, instead of seeking reality-based solutions. People have fought, killed and died for their belief in their god. Far too many have died because they (or their parents) chose prayer instead of medicine. Swords, bullets, poison, and poisonous snakes have killed many who thought that they were protected by their god. Even without these more dramatic effects, believers often devote significant time, energy and money to worshipping their god.
Beliefs in a god (and the often concomitant ideas of divine punishment and reward) too often make people more willing to accept inequalities in this life. Low-paid factory workers and slaves were taught that their rewards were in the afterlife, so they should be meek and obedient in this life to ensure their (imaginary) rewards. Even the factory and slave owners could think that they were part of their god's divine plan, and thus deserved their earthly rewards.
God-belief has real expenses that can be large or destructive.
The last problem with Pascal’s Wager is that it completely ignores and even denigrates intellectual integrity and honesty; the wager assumes that people can believe something just because they want to. As an example, let’s talk about belief in Santa Claus. Don’t we have more respect for a child who figures out that Santa doesn’t exist, and says so, rather than continuing to lie so he can get more presents? It’s a sign of growing integrity and maturity for children to stop believing in Santa. Similarly, adults can give up belief in a god when they realize that there’s no real evidence for their god. Christians can quit being “sheep” or “children of god” and become intellectually honest.
The loss of intellectual integrity and honesty engendered by Pascal’s Wager gives some insight into how apparently rational people can behave so irrationally. By accepting the wager, they have (perhaps implicitly) given up these important traits.