In this section I will discuss some reasons why I do not believe in a God,
other than those that have already been covered above.
I was brought up a (Methodist, Protestant) Christian.
I believed in God until I was in my teens, then I realised the error of
my ways.
"Laid out end to end, all the nuclear DNA in a whole human body would
stretch the distance between the earth and the sun and back again about
100 times."
A wonderful and fascinating fact!
Where did it come from?
Devine revelation?
Of course not; it was discovered by the application of science and printed in the Scientific American, February 2011.
What has 'divine revelation' shown us about the world we live in?
Where, in any 'holy book', was knowledge revealed to Man by god?
Nothing and nowhere.
We learn about the world and the Universe by observation and by the application of science.
There could be a god; a god who very rarely or never gets involved with
anything happening on Earth or in other parts of the Universe. A god who
either does nothing or is very careful to hide any evidence of his
activities.
Science has explained most of what people used to ascribe to the work of God. Some people still believe in miracles, but miracles have never been convincingly proven to happen.
A long standing tenet of science is 'Ockham's Razor'. Ockham's
Razor tells us that if more than one hypothesis fit the available evidence
then the simplest one is to be preferred. The god hypothesis is no more
productive than
Bertrand Russell's teapot. Why hypothesize the existence of a god when that hypothesis answers no questions?
There is no scientifically verifiable evidence that a god or gods exist
and hypothesizing a god does not answer any questions.
While there were inklings in ancient times it was probably about the time of Isaac Newton that people seriously started to realise that the
Universe could be understood by studying it and proposing rational hypotheses to explain what one saw. It must have been about then that people started to see that it was not necessary to suppose that there had to be a god to move the planets around and to make seeds germinate. (Perhaps the ancient Greeks had similar inklings?)
A god is not needed to explain how the Universe works.
The concept of an immortal soul
is demonstrably false
If there is nothing beyond the death of the body, there is very little use for religion, we can and should study
ethics to tell us how to live and what is right and wrong.
I explain why the concept of an immortal soul is quite absurd on
another page on this site.
Many wars have been fought over religion. Countless people have been killed for reasons of religion.
From the year 622 there were wars between Christians and Muslims, both of whom supposedly believed in the same god (the Muslims believed in one more prophet than the Christians accepted).
Since Martin Luther broke away from the Catholic Church there have been many other people and groups forming branches of the Christian religion.
Why are there no break-away Christian groups, other than the Eastern Orthodox,
that date back from the institutionalisation of Christianity by Emperor
Theodosius I around 390AD
(Rome's Christian Emperors)
to 1517 when Luther produced his 95 Thesis? This is a period of over 1100 years.
There are no surviving break-away groups because those who started such
groups were sooner or later ruthlessly forced to remain in the main-stream,
with the authorities often using torture or execution for those who
resisted. They were called heretics and were forced to believe, or at
least to pretend to believe, the same as the dominant group.
After Martin Luther there were wars in Europe between Protestants and
Catholics for hundreds of years, each group trying to force their beliefs
onto the other. Many of those who migrated to the New World did so to
escape religious persecution.
In my life time there has been:
- The 'troubles' in Northern Ireland, Catholics against Protestants;
- Civil war in Lebanon, Christians against Muslims;
- Since the establishment of Israel Jews have fought against Muslims;
- When Yugoslavia broke up most of the fighting was between Eastern
Orthodox Serbs and Catholic Croats or Muslim Bosnians;
- In Somalia it is Christians against Muslims;
- In India around the time Pakistan was created millions died
in fighting that was mainly between Hindus and Muslims; In beautiful
Kashmir this has continued up to the present; Sikhs have killed
many in an attempt to establish their own state in India – it was a
Sikh who murdered Prime Minister Indira Gandhi;
- In Iraq Sunnis kill Shia and vice-versa – one branch of Islam
against another;
- In the Malacca area of Indonesia there has been killing of Christians
by Muslims and Muslims by Christians;
Some advocates of religion put forward what they believe to be the counter
claim that more people have been killed by atheists than by religious
people.
While there have been very bad atheists, just
as there have been very bad theists – the point
is that atheists have very rarely killed people because of their beliefs;
religious people have killed untold millions because of their beliefs.
No wars have been fought by atheists trying to force their beliefs onto
others; "Good people have done good things and bad people have done bad things. For good people to do bad things religion is required".
I have written more on Christian intolerance
on another page.
We are told that God is good, that he knows everything (is omniscient) and
that he has unlimited powers (is omnipotent). Why, then, is the world
such a terrible place, with people cheating, maiming, torturing and killing
each other and animals living in pain from parasites, disease and injuries?
If God knows all this is happening, and he can stop it from happening,
why does he do nothing? Certainly, if there is a God, he cannot be
omniscient, omnipotent, and good.
Theologians have long sought a way around this problem, an excuse for God allowing evil and harm. One attempted justification is, they say, that God gave humans free will, and it is humans that have caused all the harm, pain and evil. This does not explain why animals have to live with the pain and misery caused by injuries inflicted by accidents, other animals, disease and parasites.
If God is good, why did he allow (or even encourage) some of the terrible
crimes
done in his name in the Bible?
Also see the Epicurean paradox.
Jesus taught that God is good, loving and forgiving. Yet for centuries
the Church has taught that, if you do not believe in God and Jesus Christ,
when you die God will send you to Hell where you will suffer eternal
torment.
Give that a little thought. If some nation in today's world publicly
admitted that it was continually and routinely torturing its prisoners,
just for the sake of punishment, it would immediately be condemned
as barbaric and shunned by all conscientious people. Yet we are to
believe that our God, who is loving and forgiving, will send those
people who do not believe in him, no matter how exemplary their lives
may have been, to eternal torment? I can easily live without that
sort of love.
The God of the Old Testament is not the same as the God that Jesus taught about. The God of the Old Testament was cruel, unforgiving, and looked after only his chosen people. Consider, for example, the way that Moses treated the
Midianites.
The God of Jesus was a much more enlightened and kind entity. I wonder, did Jesus teach about Hell and eternal torment, or is that some invention of those who came later? I don't know.
Even the Old Testament contradicts itself.
As most Christians will know, one of the Ten Commandments is "Thou shalt
not kill".
This is simple and unambiguous.
Yet there are a great number of references in the Old Testament to people
killing other people with God's sanction.
There are even at least three places where it is written that a man has
the right to kill his son if that son is not obedient!
(Exodus 21:15, Leviticus 20:9, Deuteronomy 21:18-21).
The Bible is a hodgepodge. Not only does the New Testament largely contradict the Old, but within the New Testament there are writings from many people. 'Saint' Paul never met Jesus, yet he played a very large part in shaping Christianity. Emperor Constantine I, with his Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, also played a big part in redefining Christianity. The anonymous authors (note the plural) of Revelations (the last 'Book' in the New Testament) added their slant to the forming Christianity.
Why should we accept, without evidence, that all these people new exactly who God was and what he wanted?
(See Chatting with (archangel) Michael)
In the West in the early twenty-first century we have a high level of
freedom to do and say what we choose so long as it does not interfere
with the rights of others. This is reasonable, ethical, and is as it
should be.
Under Islam it is unacceptable for an artist to portray any other life-form,
even plants. This is because Mohammed was trying to steer people away from
worshiping idols – as was commonly done in the Mecca of his youth. He
reasoned that if people could not make images of any plant or animal then
they could not use that as an image to be worshipped. I suspect that
most Westerners don't realise how much poorer fundamentalist Islamic
countries are for this; most of what we call art is banned!
Under the Taliban in Afghanistan even music – other than in praise of
Allah – was also banned.
Under Christianity, when the Church ran the Western World, the situation
was not much better. Religious art was acceptable, but secular art was
frowned upon.
Music praising God was OK, music simply as an art form
was thought somehow sinful.
(There are still hangovers from this sort of thinking; traditional Irish
dancers don't move their arms because the Catholic Church held that that
was too sensual and therefore sinful.)
There are Christians in most or all Western countries, but especially in
the USA, who do not allow their children to go to public schools,
watch television, listen to the radio, or read newspapers because they
want to force their own deluded beliefs onto their children.
They are allowed to
force their children to do what they would like to force the rest of us
to do, if they could.
What a terribly poorer place the world would be for thinking,
art appreciating, people if Christian or Islamic
fundamentalists had their way!
If one is to make the most of one's life, one must try to work out which
of one's beliefs are true and which are false. More accurately, one must
try to decide values for all one's beliefs.
I suspect that most of us do this all the time; for everyday beliefs.
For example, I believe that the rain that has been falling off-and-on
over the past couple of days is nearly finished.
I am not sure of it, but I think it
more likely than not. If pressed I'd say something like I'm 90% sure
that there is less rain to come in the next 48 hours than there has been
in the past 48 hours. This opinion is based on what I know of the
Bureau of Meteorology's weather forecast and the impression I have built
up over the years on the accuracy of those weather forecasts.
How firmly a belief is held should depend on how much evidence there is for
that belief and how much reliance can be placed in that evidence.
A belief that is held in spite of not being supported by any valid evidence
is a superstition.
I know of no evidence that I could rely on that supports the existence of
a god or gods.
Science has shown us a huge amount about how the world works.
Ever since the Golden Age of Greece – when philosophers were first
allowed
to think and say what logic and observation lead them to believe –
those who were not under the thumb of religious bigotry have slowly,
falteringly, advanced the state of knowledge.
There have been dark ages – caused either by barbarism or
bigotry – in different parts of the
world at different times, but above this there has been a gradual advancement
toward an understanding of the Universe.
Religious fundamentalists – like those in the USA who claim that
'Creation Science' or 'Intelligent Design' is just as valid scientifically
as the truly scientific study of evolution – would corrupt science and
ban all those fields that they felt might lead to conclusions that didn't
suit their preconceptions, if they had the power.
Many things in nature – the way that plants grow, the way animals
reproduce, why the stars shine, why the planets move through the sky, where
we came from, and very many other questions –
were once explained as being the work of God.
Science has now provided answers to most of the big questions.
Christians would have us believe that God loves us; He loves us
unconditionally. Yet they would also have us believe that if we do
not believe in Jesus and God then this same loving God will condemn us
to eternal torment.
Isn't there a contradiction here? Are we to believe that, no matter whether
you live an exemplary life or not, you must believe in God and believe
that redemption can only be achieved 'through Jesus' (whatever that means)
or your loving God will torture you for all eternity?
I have written more on religions and other superstitions in
Ramblings on religion.
