Monday, November 16, 2015

Answers for a Christian Friend

The following was adapted from my letter to a family friend. I was raised in the Christian faith (like his children, who were my childhood friends), but I now have an atheist worldview. The following essays articulate my stance on several of “the big questions.” They are framed in response to his arguments for the Christian faith.

—On Religion and Culture—


Countries with Christian traditions have more Christians. Countries with Buddhist traditions have fewer Christians. This happens because religious people usually have the same religion as their parents.

You admit that culture has an impact on what people believe. Yet, you claim that God still makes a way for everyone to hear “the Truth” of Christianity. To me, that sounds like you’re making a convenient assumption. (And, the more assumptions you need to make, the more unlikely your explanation becomes.)

In my opinion, it is more likely that religion aligns with cultural boundaries because it is a component of culture. It is more likely that people believe religious stories because they learn those stories when they are children.

This is a better explanation because it does not require me to make special assumptions, like the assumption that religious beliefs behave differently than other cultural beliefs.

—On the Origin of the Universe—


You say that God must have created the universe because “nothing comes from nothing.” I assume you know this old argument by its proper name, “the argument from first cause.” (It’s been around since Aristotle’s time, at least.) I also assume that you’ve heard the old response: “If nothing comes from nothing, where did God come from?”

You tried to suggest that special rules apply to God by saying that he “always was,” but that is another special assumption. If you can say, “God always existed,” I can say, “The universe always existed.” Regardless of whether we invoke God, we are invoking special rules when we claim that a “first cause” could exist. No matter what we cite as the “first cause,” we are violating the conventional idea that “nothing comes from nothing.”

The truth is, no one really knows how the universe began. You respond by embracing a mythical explanation, but I respond by admitting, “I don’t know.” David Eagleman called those “the most important three words that science ever gave to humankind.” He used them to conclude his talk at TEDxHouston, which you can watch here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LENqnjZGX0A

Eagleman’s talk is on “possibilianism,” a tongue-in-cheek ideology. The goal is to remain open-minded without becoming gullible. In Eagleman’s words, “We know too little to commit to a position of strict atheism (where we act like we’ve got it all figured out), but we know too much to commit to a particular religious position.”

That is my opinion too. I remain open-minded about the possibility of a higher power, but I have never been impressed by the arguments for specific religions.

—On the Mind of an Atheist—


You keep returning to the idea that nonbelievers somehow know the “Truth” of your religion already. Supposedly, we are just denying it, or suppressing it.

For the good of your own arguments, you should let go of this idea. Clinging to it prevents you from understanding the position that you argue against... and you will never be able to challenge the mindset of an atheist unless you understand it.

To understand the mindset of an atheist, you have to imagine (however briefly) that your religion is not “obviously the one that’s true.” You have to place it in a bucket with the world’s other religions and ask, “What makes my religion true when the others are false?”

Remember, I’m not going to take your religion more seriously just because it’s old, or popular, or a traditional part of American culture. To me, your religion looks like a bunch of myths and superstitions, so I’m going to treat it that way unless you can convince me otherwise.

Should I be convinced because your holy book contains some good ideas? No, because your holy book isn’t the only one with good ideas.

Should I be convinced because humans are born with empathy and reason? Not unless you can explain how that proves your god specifically.

Should I be convinced because you think you have a personal relationship with God? Of course not. You could be imagining that.

Should I be convinced because God answers your prayers? Not unless you can prove it. Your “answered prayer” might be a coincidence, or something that happened naturally. For example, you would probably thank God if you survived cancer, but people survive cancer all the time (with or without praying). When there’s a natural explanation, how can you be sure that the prayer made a supernatural difference?

If you really want to impress me, you should find an amputee and pray for God to grow his arm back. That would convince me that prayer works!

(For more on this idea, visit http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/)


In the end, you don't need to agree with my worldview, but you should acknowledge that my worldview is valid. Sure, you can tell yourself that I’m in denial instead... but that’s an easy, dismissive response to the points that I’ve made. We both deserve better.

What if I’m not buying the sales pitch for your religion just because the sales pitch isn’t very good? What if the “evidence” for your god isn’t as convincing as you think it is? What if the supernatural “Truth” of your god isn’t as obvious as it seems to you? What then?

That is for you to decide. I cannot pretend that I know your mindset better than you do. However, you need to stop acting like you know mine better than I do! In the face of my reasoned arguments, and the actual facts about my worldview, it is absurd for you to cling to the idea that I’m just in denial about your religion being true.

Dictionary.com defines a delusion as “a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact.” You have, in effect, a delusional belief that I am delusional.

—On Communicating Your Message—


I do not expect to convince you that you are wrong in your convictions, but I sincerely want you to realize how your arguments sound from the outside.

When you use “Truth” with a capital “T,” you clearly have a special meaning in mind. Perhaps you are using “Truth” as a synonym for “God.” However, you can’t expect me to understand what you mean (much less be swayed by your argument) if you assign special meanings to the words that you use.

You can’t just say these things and expect me to accept them because they sound good. If you are ever going to convince someone like me, you will need to explain exactly how and why your god explains our existence better than the alternatives. You will need to do this without relying exclusively on Bible verses, or on “obvious” truths that are only obvious to you, and others of your faith.

And remember, it is not sufficient to show that your god is a possible explanation; you will need to show that your god is the best available explanation. So often, this is where religious arguments fall down.

—On Morality—


Does every person know it is wrong to steal? To lie? To murder?

When I look at the world around me, I don’t think that’s true. Consider people with personality defects and cognitive problems. Their sense of right and wrong might be absent, or totally different from the norm. A psychopath might feel no remorse after murdering someone!

But, without a universal sense of right and wrong, can we decide our own morals?

Once upon a time, Bertrand Russell said that he could distinguish right from wrong in the same way that he could distinguish red from green. This story is sometimes used to make Russell look bad, but only because people fail to understand the comparison.

Let’s say that green corresponds to good and red corresponds to evil.

Most people perceive “red” in a similar way. The perception is consistent enough that Crayola can sell a crayon labeled “red” and most people will agree with the label. (The people who have a different perception are considered color-blind, and their perception is not validated by Crayola’s labeling system.)

Most people perceive “evil” in a similar way. The perception is consistent enough that society can condemn stealing, lying, and murder as “evil” and most people will agree. (The people who have a different perception are considered dysfunctional, and their perception is not validated by society’s ethical system.)

You assume that humanity’s shared perception of evil is a result of God’s influence. However, it is better explained by social practicality. Stealing, lying, and murder are considered “evil” because they are antisocial behaviors, in the literal sense of being antagonistic to society. Therefore, most societies evolved to condemn such behaviors.

Obviously, this is not a perfect system. Thus, it is vital for each person to make thoughtful choices about when to embrace society’s ethics and when to reject them.

As an atheist, I do not get to decide what is objectively right or wrong... but I have to decide what kind of person I will be. That is the responsibility I speak of when I talk about “deciding my own morals.”