Godless (16 page)
During the debate, Rajabali said that Allah is a “just” God, as well as an “infinitely merciful” God, so I jumped at the rare opportunity to positively disprove the existence of God, as so defined. Justice means that punishment is administered with the exact amount of severity that is deserved for the crime that is committed. We don’t put children in prison for stealing cookies, and we don’t merely fine a murderer $50. Mercy, on the other hand, means that punishment is administered with
less
severity than deserved. When the police officer lets you off with a warning instead of a ticket for breaking the speed limit, that is mercy.
less
severity than deserved. When the police officer lets you off with a warning instead of a ticket for breaking the speed limit, that is mercy.
If God is infinitely merciful, he can never be just. If God is ever just (not to mention infinitely just), then he cannot be infinitely merciful. A God who is both infinitely merciful and just not only does not exist, he
cannot
exist. This is one of the positive arguments for the nonexistence of God based on incompatible properties (or incoherency). If God is defined as a married bachelor, we don’t need to discuss evidence or argument; we can simply claim a logical impossibility. (See Chapter 7 for more incoherency arguments.) In response, Rajabali chided me for failing to think in multiple dimensions at the same time. “When Qur’an says God is Merciful, and God is Just,” he went on, “these simultaneous characteristics cannot be compartmentalized, we must understand them holistically.” I guess that explains it.
cannot
exist. This is one of the positive arguments for the nonexistence of God based on incompatible properties (or incoherency). If God is defined as a married bachelor, we don’t need to discuss evidence or argument; we can simply claim a logical impossibility. (See Chapter 7 for more incoherency arguments.) In response, Rajabali chided me for failing to think in multiple dimensions at the same time. “When Qur’an says God is Merciful, and God is Just,” he went on, “these simultaneous characteristics cannot be compartmentalized, we must understand them holistically.” I guess that explains it.
By the way, I also pointed out that if God is infinitely merciful, then I cannot go to hell. It wouldn’t matter how I lived or what I thought, infinite mercy would absolve me of any crime, no matter how great, including the crime of refusing to believe in God, accept his authority or admit that I had done anything wrong.
The Islamic Center in Queens is huge, occupying at least one entire city block, with many meeting rooms and classrooms. It also has a mosque. I had never seen a mosque in person, and before the debate I asked Ali Khalfan, the organizer who was my main contact, if I could see it. He took me around to the other side of the block where we entered the mosque and saw carpets on the floor and a number of people kneeling and praying to the opposite wall. It was smaller than I thought, but very pretty. Since I had been reading about Islam, I knew about the qibla wall, which orients the worshipper toward Mecca, and I pointed east to the niche or alcove and whispered to Ali, “Is that the direction to Mecca?” He nodded his head. “But that’s not right,” I replied. I pointed my finger down at an angle into the earth and said, “
That
is the shortest distance to Mecca.” He didn’t smile. Pointing back to the east, I said, “If you pray in that direction, your prayers will go straight out into space at a tangent and miss Mecca.” He still did not smile, so I whispered, “What do you expect when you invite an atheist?”
That
is the shortest distance to Mecca.” He didn’t smile. Pointing back to the east, I said, “If you pray in that direction, your prayers will go straight out into space at a tangent and miss Mecca.” He still did not smile, so I whispered, “What do you expect when you invite an atheist?”
I suppose it is possible that prayers are affected by gravity and bend around the planet, so I couldn’t press the point. To his credit, Ali continued to be friendly and took my heresy in stride. But I wonder if he thought about the fact that the
qibla
(a directional prayer wall) is a flat-earth concept. And why does it matter which direction you pray? If God is everywhere, how can you turn and face him?
qibla
(a directional prayer wall) is a flat-earth concept. And why does it matter which direction you pray? If God is everywhere, how can you turn and face him?
After the debate I told Ali that I was really impressed with the kindness and generosity of the people. They gave me gifts and fed me wonderful food. They were gentle, thoughtful, humorous and articulate. “You people are so nice,” I told him. “Well, Dan,” he replied, “Allah commands me to be nice to you.” I was stunned.
Allah commands me to be nice to you.
I didn’t say a word, but I was thinking, “So—you don’t really want to be nice to me on your own? You actually want to be cruel, but you are restraining yourself? You don’t find in me any qualities that merit your admiration? You are forcing yourself to pretend to be my friend in order to please your God? I’m supposed to be impressed with that?”
Allah commands me to be nice to you.
I didn’t say a word, but I was thinking, “So—you don’t really want to be nice to me on your own? You actually want to be cruel, but you are restraining yourself? You don’t find in me any qualities that merit your admiration? You are forcing yourself to pretend to be my friend in order to please your God? I’m supposed to be impressed with that?”
I’m sure he did not realize the insult of his comment. Or the lack of morality. “If Allah commands you, will you be mean to me? Where is the friendship in that?” I left those thoughts unspoken because I think people should be judged by their actions, not by their beliefs, and his actions were truly gentle and admirable.
Another fun moment happened during one of my debates with John Morehead in Sacramento, California, on the resurrection of Jesus. At one point, he mentioned that he had a list of more than 20 qualified bible scholars who supported his position that Jesus historically rose from the dead. I was ready for him. “I don’t think it is appropriate to argue from authority,” I replied. “But since you do, and since you offer your list of scholars, I counter with a list of my own.” I held up a list of 75 highly qualified bible scholars, most of them believing Christians with at least one Ph.D. in biblical languages and related subjects, and showing the universities and institutions where they teach. Each of the scholars is convinced that the resurrection of Jesus is legend or myth.
The idea that truth should be democratic is a common theme among many believers. If that were true, we would have to treat women as second-class citizens because if we polled the entire planet we would find sexism rampant. The same is true with racism. Some say that the sheer numbers of Christians must trump dissent—so too bad, atheists, you lose. Some claim that there were more atrocities committed by atheistic Stalin and Mao than by the Christian Crusaders and Inquisitors, as if the approach to truth is simply a matter of piling up the bodies and picking the smaller stack. (Why should Christianity have a stack of bodies at all?) Michael Horner is fond of saying “the consensus among scholars” during debates (as if the scholars of the world had actually been polled), when he probably means “the consensus of the scholars that I choose to read.” Of course, it is important to give weight to informed experts, but we should not turn authority into dogma. We should take every claim and argument on its own merits. Every decent scholar in the world would expect us to independently test their conclusions, not simply take their word for it. The question should not be “Is Christianity popular?” or “Is Christianity useful?” The important question should be “Is Christianity true?”
In April 2008, I debated Dinesh D’Souza, author of
What’s So Great About Christianity
, in Memorial Chapel at Harvard University. Sponsored by the Humanist Chaplaincy at Harvard and the Secular Student Alliance, the topic was “Christianity vs. Atheism.” The debate was driven by questions from Divinity School students. Dinesh is a likable speaker with a broad knowledge of history but a shallow knowledge of the bible. He actually claims that the Western concept of universal equality originated with Christianity, quoting Galatians 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ.” If D’Souza had done the barest minimum of bible study—for example, reading Paul’s entire brief epistle to the Galatians—he would know that this verse applies only to baptized Christians, and only in regards to the specific issue of circumcision. (That’s right—they were wrestling with the important question of whether new converts should be bodily mutilated.) Even worse, Paul goes on to state that the descendants of Ishmael, the Arabs (today, the Muslims), should be “cast out.” This is hardly universal equality!
What’s So Great About Christianity
, in Memorial Chapel at Harvard University. Sponsored by the Humanist Chaplaincy at Harvard and the Secular Student Alliance, the topic was “Christianity vs. Atheism.” The debate was driven by questions from Divinity School students. Dinesh is a likable speaker with a broad knowledge of history but a shallow knowledge of the bible. He actually claims that the Western concept of universal equality originated with Christianity, quoting Galatians 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ.” If D’Souza had done the barest minimum of bible study—for example, reading Paul’s entire brief epistle to the Galatians—he would know that this verse applies only to baptized Christians, and only in regards to the specific issue of circumcision. (That’s right—they were wrestling with the important question of whether new converts should be bodily mutilated.) Even worse, Paul goes on to state that the descendants of Ishmael, the Arabs (today, the Muslims), should be “cast out.” This is hardly universal equality!
Displaying an even weaker understanding of philosophy and science, D’Souza claimed that since there are laws of nature, there must be a lawgiver. I pointed out that this is an equivocation. Most Philosophy 101 students know that there is a difference between prescriptive laws (like the highway speed limit) and descriptive laws (like the inverse-square law of gravitational attraction). D’Souza is comparing apples and oranges, hoping to confuse gullible believers, although I was told that many in that Harvard audience immediately saw right through his slippery tactic.
John Allen Paulos, in his book
Irreligion
, gives a wonderful original example of this dishonest trick, using the definition of the word “is.” “It’s not hard to equivocally move back and forth between these meanings of ‘is’ to arrive at quite dubious conclusions. For example, from ‘God is love,’ ‘Love is blind,’ and ‘My father’s brother is blind,’ we might conclude, ‘There is a God, and he is my uncle.’” Many theistic debaters make exactly this kind of mistake.
Irreligion
, gives a wonderful original example of this dishonest trick, using the definition of the word “is.” “It’s not hard to equivocally move back and forth between these meanings of ‘is’ to arrive at quite dubious conclusions. For example, from ‘God is love,’ ‘Love is blind,’ and ‘My father’s brother is blind,’ we might conclude, ‘There is a God, and he is my uncle.’” Many theistic debaters make exactly this kind of mistake.
Jesus is quoted as saying that he came to uphold the old theocratic laws—which are, presumably, prescriptive laws—not to overthrow or improve them. (Matthew 5:17) We freethinkers want to do the opposite. That’s why I love debates, and my new “calling.”
PART 2
Why I Am an Atheist
Chapter Five
Why I Am an Atheist
If there is anything that is obvious, it is that the existence of God is not obvious. There would be no “Does God Exist?” debates if the question were one of evidence. By now someone would have won the Nobel Prize for demonstrating the existence of a hitherto unknown force in the cosmos. Any scientist in the world would jump at the chance to be the one who finally proved that God is real. Of course, some philosophers and theologians feel that this can never happen because a supernatural being, by definition, is beyond the reach of science, which can only examine the natural world.
Nevertheless, most non-philosophers do feel that there is a wealth of evidence for a god. Miracles, changed lives, fulfilled prophecies, biblical revelation, the resurrection of Jesus, unsolved scientific questions (which they mistake for evidence), coincidences they say could not have happened by chance, inner experience, selfless acts of kindness and so on all prove to the believer that God exists. Some offer attempts at rational arguments (examined in the next chapter). Since many of these believers cannot imagine
themselves
as nonbelievers, they try to detect some ulterior motive for atheism. Rather than accept the straightforward statement that there is no evidence for a god, which allows the implication that their worldview might be wrong, many Christians have claimed to guess the “true” cause of unbelief. Here are some of the
ad hominem
arguments I have heard:
themselves
as nonbelievers, they try to detect some ulterior motive for atheism. Rather than accept the straightforward statement that there is no evidence for a god, which allows the implication that their worldview might be wrong, many Christians have claimed to guess the “true” cause of unbelief. Here are some of the
ad hominem
arguments I have heard:
• “You resent moral guidelines and want to be free to live a life of sin and selfishness.”
• “You dislike authority.”
• “You want to be different and stir up trouble.”
• “You are arrogant and hate God and want to be higher than God, like Lucifer (Satan).”
• “Your heart is in the wrong place.”
• “You have been hurt by Christians, or offended by certain nonrepresentative immoralities and crimes in the Church.”
• “You are impatient and disappointed that not all your prayers are answered.”
• “You feel let down by God, who didn’t answer your prayers the way you wanted.”
• “You are cold, empty and pessimistic.”
• “You are an angry person.”
• “You are too stupid, blind, limited or afraid to see what is obvious to everyone else.”
• “You have been seduced by scientists into refusing to accept the possibility of miracles.”
• “You are an atheist because you don’t know the true meaning of love.”
None of these accusations is true. None is relevant. A strong clue that a person is arguing from a position of weakness is when they attack character rather than arguments and facts. Bertrand Russell pointed out that
ad hominem
is a last-ditch defense of the losing side. My atheism has nothing to do with any of this. Even if it did, how would it add to the evidence for a god?
ad hominem
is a last-ditch defense of the losing side. My atheism has nothing to do with any of this. Even if it did, how would it add to the evidence for a god?
By the way, an
ad hominem
argument is not the same as a character attack.
Ad hominem
is when you use the character of your opponent to dismiss his or her argument. It would not be
ad hominem
to say that “My opponent is a thief,” but it
would
be to say that “My opponent’s conclusion is wrong because my opponent is a thief.” My opponent might be a horrible person with ulterior motives, but that would not make his or her reasoning or conclusion wrong.
ad hominem
argument is not the same as a character attack.
Ad hominem
is when you use the character of your opponent to dismiss his or her argument. It would not be
ad hominem
to say that “My opponent is a thief,” but it
would
be to say that “My opponent’s conclusion is wrong because my opponent is a thief.” My opponent might be a horrible person with ulterior motives, but that would not make his or her reasoning or conclusion wrong.
The only times the opponent’s character is relevant in a debate are when the specific topic is morality, when it is fair to examine possible hypocrisy, or when eye-witness evidence is being offered and a history of dishonesty might weaken credibility. In those cases attacking character is not
ad hominem
. If the Catholic Church, for example, claims that believing in Christ makes you a better person, then it is not unfair to point to the clergy sexual abuse scandal as evidence against that claim. (Who should be more representative of the religion than the priests?) It would be
ad hominem
and inappropriate, however, if I were to say, “Don’t believe anything the Church teaches because their leaders are pedophiles.”
ad hominem
. If the Catholic Church, for example, claims that believing in Christ makes you a better person, then it is not unfair to point to the clergy sexual abuse scandal as evidence against that claim. (Who should be more representative of the religion than the priests?) It would be
ad hominem
and inappropriate, however, if I were to say, “Don’t believe anything the Church teaches because their leaders are pedophiles.”
When Peter (if the story is true) told his friends that he saw the resurrected Jesus, the fact that he had recently lied by denying that he knew Jesus lowers the credibility of his testimony. It is not
ad hominem
to point this out because it is not part of a logical argument; it is an assessment of the reliability of a witness.
ad hominem
to point this out because it is not part of a logical argument; it is an assessment of the reliability of a witness.
Other books
A Little Street Magic by Gayla Drummond
Sentinel Five (The Redaction Chronicles Book 2) by James Quinn
In the Sea There are Crocodiles by Fabio Geda
Listen To Me: A Rock Star Romance (True North) by Carrie Elliott
Shadow of the Moon by M. M. Kaye
Disturbances in the Field by Lynne Sharon Schwartz
The Lion's Shared Bride by Bonnie Burrows
Satin and Steel by Jayna Vixen
The Jungle Warrior by Andy Briggs
The Fellowship: The Literary Lives of the Inklings by Philip Zaleski, Carol Zaleski
