Monday, June 24, 2024

The Angry Atheist

Abstract/TLDR Version:
Atheists have a reputation for being angry.  It’s true.  I am angry.  I’m angry about the violence perpetuated in the name of religion.  I’m angry about the persecution of humanity’s greatest thinkers for questioning religious dogma.  I’m angry about the loss of human knowledge through the ages by the destruction of ideas in conflict with religion.  I'm angry about the repression of Native cultures in the name of religion.  I’m angry about the exploitation of followers by religious authorities and organizations for money and sexual abuse.  I’m angry about religious infiltration and distortion of modern politics.  I'm angry about the infiltration of religion in the public schools and public venues.  But above all, I’m angry that 2400 years after the execution of Socrates, religion is still the overwhelmingly dominant belief in society.  In the two millennia since Jesus Christ, some of the greatest philosophers, thinkers and writers have considered aspects of religious doctrine, and failed to consider the most basic question – “what if none of this is real”?  Why is this left to me, in the 21st century, to point out that the emperor has no clothes?  There is no evidence today that supports the existence of the supernatural world, and logical reasoning yields the conclusion that God does not exist, given the world that we see.  I have other important problems to deal with but here I am, blogging about atheism.


Image Note:
I wrote this entire post, then searched for an appropriate image to convey my notion of the angry atheist.  To my delight, I found the cover art of a book by Greta Christina drawn by Casimir Fornalski.  This image perfectly captures the sentiment I was looking for in this blog post.  To my even greater delight, I ordered and read the book, “Why Are You Atheists So Angry? 99 Things that Piss Off the Godless”.   Not surprisingly, Greta Christina touches on many of the same themes and examples I used in my post, and did so much better and more completely.  Christina’s book is an excellent rendering of everything I am trying to say.  Please buy and read this excellent book.  
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atheist.
For a moment, look at the word, and picture that person in your mind’s eye.  What kind of person do you see?  How do they speak?  Do you find that person friendly?  Pleasant?  Attractive? Or unpleasant and disagreeable?

As an atheist myself, I find that I don’t have positive associations with the word.  In my experience, too often, other atheists have been argumentative and disrespectful of others’ beliefs.  I’ve developed a bias that presumes atheists are angry, tedious and tiresome.  

In this blog, I have often mentioned a particular atheist college classmate.  She is relentlessly dismissive of the beliefs of others, aggressive, tedious and tiresome in her interactions on social media.  On the positive side of the leger, her loud advocacy of atheism has enabled a number of other classmates to admit that they, too, are atheists.  Perhaps I am a member of that group.  

I know that pleasant atheists exist; I’m acquainted with several.  For the most part, they keep their disbelief to themselves, do not challenge others’ beliefs.  Like gay people of the last generation, they stay in the closet.  

Is it possible to openly be an atheist, without confronting and challenging the beliefs of religious people?  It seems as though the very existence of atheism challenges religious belief.  When I have presented my disbelief on social media, the interaction seems to end in one of two ways: 1) “You will burn in hell  and regret your choice for eternity”, or 2) “I will pray for you,” which is a passive-aggressive way of disrespecting my convictions.

There’s a stereotype that atheists are angry, perhaps with good reason.  Just Google images for “Angry Atheist” and you’ll find abundant discussion threads and images.  The results include a cheerful yellow mug with the words “Angry Atheist”, Angry  Atheist buttons, blog posts, books, newspaper articles, and lots of images of people screaming.  As mentioned above, this is how I found the book cover for the book by Greta Christina, which perfectly represents the theme of this post.

In her book “River of Grass”, Marjorie Stoneman Douglas mentions an incident involving a boat in a storm.  A man was captain of a small sailing boat; his passengers were his father and a pastor.  At a critical moment in the storm, the captain ordered the pastor to cut the mainsail to stabilize the boat.  Instead, the pastor fell to his knees, and loudly prayed for the Lord to save the boat.  The boat crashed, and the captain’s father died.  For the rest of the captain’s life, whenever he encountered a discussion about faith, he angrily argued for atheism and against religion.

Atheists are angry out of empathy for the boat captain, for this incident, and for thousands of other events over the centuries.  The following paragraphs are a list of things to be angry about.

War, Murder and Violence in the Name of Religion
I have to admit, I am angry.  I’m angry about the Crusades.  I’m angry about the Aztec prisoners who were killed to appease the gods, the ritually slaughtered neolithic Danish bog victims and the Mayan youth thrown into cenotes, and the murder of Plains Indian children for the power of their spirits.  I’m angry at the ritual murder of the children of Inca chiefs, and the present-day ritual murder of children in Africa for the purpose of folk medicine.  I’m angry about the 70,000 concubines, servants and their families who were buried alive to serve Emperor Qin Shi Huang in the afterlife.  I’m angry about the servants and concubines killed and buried with Egyptian pharaohs and Scythian kings.

I’m angry about the tortures of the Catholic Inquisition and the persecution of Jews.  I’m angry about the roughly 50,000 women who were executed as witches in Europe and America between 1400 and 1775.  I’m angry at the violent deaths of up to 2,000,000 people in the religious violence during the 1947 partition of India and Pakistan.

I’m angry at the sacrifice of animals to appease the gods, which was practiced in more religions than I can name, or the killing of animals to accompany humans after death.

Violent Repression of Independent Thinkers
For millennia, religious traditionalists have repressed or killed some of the brightest humans to ever live.  This repression of independent thought inhibited other inventive, philosophically-minded people.

I’m angry that religious traditionalists tried and executed Socrates for crimes of impiety and corrupting the youth of Athens.   I’m angry about the death of Hypatia of Alexandria, a pagan philosopher, astronomer & mathematician murdered by a mob of Christians.  Giordano Bruno was the first known person to realize that stars were distant suns which might have planets and life.  Bruno who was burned alive in 1600 for suggesting that Mary was probably not a virgin, the Holy Trinity really didn’t make sense, and eternal damnation wasn’t consistent with the notion of a loving God.  Galileo wasn’t executed, but was threatened with torture and silenced by the Catholic Church.  The persecution of Galileo (who was pardoned by the pope 359 years later) ended the development of Renaissance science in southern Europe, leaving northern Europe to continue the advancement of civilization.  I’m angry about that.

Destruction of Human Knowledge in the Name of Religion

I’m angry about the destruction of books and records for religious reasons.  The Wikipedia article “List of Destroyed Libraries” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_destroyed_libraries) lists dozens of libraries from antiquity to modern times which were destroyed because they contained texts at odds with the prevailing religion.  The libraries include the library at Alexandria (destroyed in several events, not all of which were religious).  At Alexandria, Caliph Omar gave this order: "If those books are in agreement with the Quran, we have no need of them; and if these are opposed to the Quran, destroy them."  I’m angry at the nearly complete destruction of Mayan and Aztec written works by Spanish conquistadors and Catholic priests.  Religious purges of libraries also happened in China, India, Greece, Spain, England, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Constantinople, etc.  At Cordoba, all books containing “ancient science” were destroyed as heretical.  How much farther would civilization have advanced if this knowledge had not been destroyed?

Repression of Indigenous Cultures
I’m angry about the repression of indigenous cultures in the name of religion.  Across the world, Western missionaries moved to far-flung parts of the globe, often on the heels of military invaders, and taught indigenous peoples that their beliefs and customs were wrong.  Varying degrees of coercion were used.  Entire languages were eradicated; written literature, history and knowledge were burned.  Cultural norms of ownership, family structure, diet and construction were erased.  Some of my ancestors participated in that destruction.  In a world without missionaries, we would have much more human cultural diversity today, and a wider range of knowledge and art.  To me, perhaps the worst of it is that missionaries replaced native beliefs with fraudulent beliefs.  It may have been correct that there are no animal or ancestor spirits to worship, but the religion that replaced these superstitions is equally false.

Incredibly, repression of Native culture is still happening today, in the United States.  Today, The Guardian reported on a recent event in Arizona, in which Native Apache teen girls were expelled from a Lutheran school for performing in a traditional Native ceremony.  The girls were sent a letter by the school, offering to re-instate them if they confessed that they were worshiping the devil in the Native dance, and that they promised not to do it again.  The expulsions were part of a long-standing pattern of denigrating and suppressing Native culture.  Apparently, religious freedom only applies to the predominant Christian religion.  I'm angry about that.

Exploitation of Followers by Religious Authorities

In my blog post “Is Religion Benign? Part I”, I discuss a number of financial and sexual scandals involving religious leaders.  It seems that sexual scandals are an occupational hazard for televangelists and megachurch pastors, and I don’t need to repeat reporting on pedophile Catholic priests.  It is disturbingly common for individuals who have gained the trust of religious believers to exploit that trust for sex and money.  I’m angry about that.

There’s further institutional financial exploitation by churches.  Large churches accumulate massive amounts of wealth from members’ donations.  The LDS (Mormon) church holds an investment fund worth about $50 billion, or about $3000 per member.  The Catholic church also holds a massive amount of wealth.  Relatively small discrete parts of the church are known to hold assets in excess of $73 billion.  Not included in that estimate is real estate which extends over an area the size of Texas.  Other denominations have also accumulated much wealth on an institutional scale.

So what’s the problem?  Shouldn’t parishioners be free to spend their money in donations to these businesses?  (I do consider churches to be businesses.)   The problem is that the product these businesses are selling is a fraud.  Imagine ordering something from Amazon that was advertised to help you in your daily life and give you eternal life after death.  The seller is offering an invisible product that will be delivered to your door in an invisible box.  All you have to do is send the money and believe in the invisible box.  Wouldn’t you have a problem with that?  I do.  I’m angry about that.  I’m angry on behalf of the people who are being defrauded.

In the United States, as in most countries, churches do not pay taxes.  It is clear that churches are not non-profit organizations.  They’re simply businesses selling an invisible fraudulent product, and paying no tax on their earnings.  Communities could benefit from those taxes.  I’m angry about that, too.

The Modern Conflation of Religion and Politics
I’m angry that the modern conservative movement has coopted and conflated fundamentalist Christianity with Republican politics.  Christianity, as  seen in the actions and words of Christ, rejects religious authorities, criticizes the wealthy and lifts up the down-trodden of the world.  If anything, it is a leftist religious ideology.  Somehow these priorities have been swept aside by conservatives, who imbue their political campaigns with the infallibility of faith in God.  It is a mutual corruption of the religion and of the political system, especially the constitutional separation of church and state.

I've written previously about the Seven Mountains movement on my political blog (here: https://debatablypolitical.blogspot.com/2022/07/the-seven-mountains-movement.html).  This movement is part of the Christian Nationalist movement that intends to create an American Christian theocracy, eliminating American religious diversity.  I'm angry about that, too.  

Infiltration of Religion into Schools, Public Venues and Public Events
The state of Louisiana now requires that the Ten Commandments be posted in every public classroom.  Posting the Ten Commandments is clearly unconstitutional, and was rejected by the Supreme Court over 40 years ago.  Nevertheless, religious conservatives continue in their efforts to indoctrinate children and mold society according to their ideology.  Similarly, there are continuing efforts to post the Ten Commandments in courthouses and government buildings.  The supposed justification for this is the asserted foundation of Western ethics and law in the Ten Commandments.  But the real reason conservatives want to post the Ten Commandments is the first Commandment: “You shall have no other God before me.”  The intent is to discredit non-Judeo-Christian religions in the minds of children and throughout society.  Conservatives’ justification for posting the Ten Commandments is false and disingenuous.  I’m angry about that.

It is common to have a prayer invocation before government meetings, graduations, convocations and other public events.  Why do we do this?  While some jurisdictions rotate responsibility for the invocation among different denominations (and are lampooned by Satanists and the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster), why do we have prayer at public functions at all?  If an event is a religious gathering it is fair to begin with a prayer.  If the event is not a religious event, there should not be a prayer!  I’m angry about the disregard for those who do not believe.

The Persistence and Modern-Day Existence of Religion
Of all the reasons to be angry at religion, I am most angry that religion still exists.  From the perspective of our stone-age ancestors, religion made sense.  Religion provided an explanation for the mysteries of the world.  Lightning?  It was the gods.  Sickness?  The gods.  Success or failure?  The gods.  Seasons?  The gods.  Marine fossils in the mountains?  Clearly the gods.  Good luck or misfortune?  Definitely due to obedience or disobedience to the gods.

But today we understand things better.  We know why lightning, sickness, seasons and mountains exist.  We understand that random events produce results that can be good or bad for people.  Today, there is no reason to believe in gods, or evidence that gods exist.  Observation and reasoning show that we do not live in a world consistent with the existence of the kind of god promoted by mainstream religion.  

We often denigrate religions of primitive or historic cultures, presenting those religions as superstition or myth.  Even in fiction, we often show primitive people worshipping false gods.  But we rarely cast that critical eye on religions of our own culture.  Instead, we accept Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shinto, Sikhism, Baha’ism and Taoism more or less in the same form they have had for a millennium or more.  I might note that Voodoo, with four times the number of adherents as Judaism, is generally rejected by Americans as superstition, while some of the rest are generally accepted as a legitimate variation on the worship of God.

But why do religions persist?  Are they all not superstition, attributing consciousness, will and agency to non-material spiritual entities, of which there is no evidence?  In the 2000 years since Jesus walked the earth, why haven’t people separated the message of kindness and forgiveness from the mystical message about the existence of a father in heaven?  Of the great thinkers through the ages, why didn’t Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, Erasmus, Spinoza or Voltaire conclude that religion was entirely nonsense?  Many of these thinkers were critical of the religion of their time, but none of them took the crucial step of recognizing that nothing about religion is true.

So, in the year 2024, about 90% of my fellow Americans believe in some kind of immaterial beings, with the majority of those believing in a divine power with perfect understanding, power and presence.  There’s no good evidence of any such beings.  There’s no process by which consciousness can be maintained without material means, such as a physical brain.  And there are inconsistencies between the world we should expect with a divine presence, and the world we actually live in.

Conclusion

Individually, I can respect the beliefs of religious people, but collectively, I cannot.  I’m angry at how religious agendas drive politics in this country  I’m angry that religion fuels conflicts around the world.  I’m angry that religion mis-directs a huge amount of wealth and human energy which could be better used making the world a better place.  I’m angry when I’m scrolling channels on the television and encounter a megachurch preacher raging against good government.  I’m angry when I drive past the parking lot of a large church on any Sunday, and look at the number of people who routinely gather to be bamboozled by a neolithic delusion.  

Given the history of religious persecution of those who voiced even modest objections to religious orthodoxy, it may be understandable that philosophers of the Middle Ages didn’t promote atheism.  I can understand not wanting to be burned alive or tortured.  But as those practices died away, the reticence to speak clearly about rational disbelief persists.  So it falls to me, and I’m angry about that.  There are other things that need to be done, but for now, I’m writing this blog.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
The book cover to Greta Christina's book "Why Are You Atheists So Angry?  99 Things That Piss Off the Godless" is used without permission and not for profit, and will be removed upon a received request. Casimir Fornalski.is the illustrator for the book cover.  You should buy and read this book.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2024/jun/24/apache-students-school-reservation
Repression of Apache culture by the East Fork Lutheran Church School of Arizona.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/511133/identify-religious-spiritual.aspx
Decline of formal religious affiliation, and replacement by spiritualism.

https://www.marketplace.org/2023/02/10/how-much-money-does-catholic-church-have/
Wealth of the Catholic Church includes $73 billion in documented assets, clearly representing only a small fraction of the total.  Unvalued real estate is an area roughly the size of Texas, often in lucrative markets.
“So we have entered a period of greater transparency with the Catholic Church. But it’s likely we’ll never truly know the extent of its assets.”

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-13/catholic-church-worth-$30-billion-investigation-finds/9422246
The Catholic Church holds $30 billion in assets in Australia alone.

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2023/08/25/lds-church-sees-its-billions-grow/
The LDS church held $49.3 billion in financial assets as of 8/2023.

There are about 17 million Mormons in the world.  There are about 1.4 billion Catholics.

Appendix
Just as there are innumerable paths to faith, there are various paths to atheism.  Some of those paths, rather than being a rational, serious search for truth, involve an oppositional tendency to reject the status quo.  These atheists are interested in tearing things down instead of building things up.

Madalyn Murray O’Hair is an example of the latter kind of atheist.  Ms. O’Hair was a polarizing figure of the 1960s and 1970s, notable as the founder of the American Atheists organization.  Ms. O’Hair’s lawsuit Murray v. Curlett in 1963 was a landmark case that went to the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court ruled that mandatory prayer and mandatory Bible reading in schools were unconstitutional, marking a pivotal point for religious freedom in American society.  Ms. O’Hair was a self-described radical feminist but rejected the women’s liberation movement of the time. She was an anarchist who had conflicts with almost every institution she encountered, a Holocaust denier, and supporter of the Soviet Union at a time when the Soviet regime was horrific.  Although I respect her legal legacy and feminist ideals, I cannot hold Ms. O’Hair in high regard.  It seems to me that she was not driven by the search for truth, but was only interested in conflict for its own sake and the destruction of the status quo.



Thursday, March 21, 2024

From Agnosticism to Atheism

I am nearing the end of what I have to say about atheism.  I have ideas for six additional posts, but in a general sense, this post is the culmination of what I have to say about atheism and belief in God.

I had doubts about the existence of God and souls from my early teens.  As I grew older, married, and had a family, I kept my doubts to myself.  I went to church with my family, worshipped and prayed as a practicing Christian.  As the children grew older, we stopped attending church and I stopped praying.  I returned to my earlier doubts and considered myself an agnostic.

Being agnostic implies uncertainty.  As it is often used, being agnostic incorrectly suggests something of a 50 – 50 proposition – “Eh, maybe it’s so, maybe not”.  Even if evidence or lack of evidence leads you to an opinion, at the end of the day being agnostic means giving a shrug and saying, “I really don’t know.”  This post is about how I moved away from a mindset of uncertainty, to decide with reasonable certainty that there is no God.  This is the path to atheism.


About a decade ago I read a short passage in an essay which radically changed my thinking.  The essay is “A Dream of Socrates”, in the book The Beginning of Infinity by David Deutsch.  In the essay, Socrates is speaking with the god Hermes in the style of the dialogues of Plato.  Hermes and Socrates have been discussing the virtues of Athenian society. 

“Hermes: ‘Most Athenians would indeed call those virtues.  But how many really believe it?  How many are willing to criticize a god by the standards of reason and justice?’
Socrates: [Ponders.] All who are just, I suppose.  For how can anyone be just if he follows a god of whose moral rightness he is not persuaded?  And how is it possible to be persuaded of someone’s moral rightness without first forming a view about which qualities are morally right?’”

The notion that people should judge gods (or God) was revolutionary to me.  But why shouldn’t we judge God?  We are intelligent beings and we can appraise justice and reason.  We should expect God to be reasonable and just.  Being reasonable and just should be something intrinsically part of how we define God.  If the world does not show evidence of God’s reason and justice, we can logically conclude that God doesn’t exist.  And if God is not reasonable and just, we’re talking about a demon, not God.  I will not believe in an unreasonable, unjust or capricious God.

Some people would tell me that God doesn’t want to be judged.  We are told, without proof, that we are lower beings created by God, and therefore we have no right to judge God.  But isn’t that unreasonable and unjust?  

On social media, I’m frequently told that I will suffer eternal damnation if I don’t repent and worship God.  If God demands worship under the threat of eternal pain and suffering, isn’t that extortion?  Is it reasonable?  I’ll answer for you.  No.  Is it just?  No.

Much of this blog has been an exploration in the ways in which God is apparently unreasonable and unjust.  My essay “God as Sustainer of All Things”  (https://sensibledisbelief.blogspot.com/2016/10/god-as-sustainer-of-all-things.html) contains a list of dozens of rationalizations that religious authorities use to excuse God’s apparent injustice toward humans.  If God exists, we have to twist logic like a pretzel to justify God’s apparent indifference and cruelty towards humankind.  Occam’s Razor gives us a better resolution of the paradox.  It is simpler, and therefore logically correct, to conclude that God doesn’t exist.

Agnosticism
Dictionaries define agnosticism as a belief that any ultimate reality, including the existence of God, is probably unknowable.  (It’s funny that agnostics are even agnostic about agnosticism.  “Is reality truly unknowable?”   “Eh, I’m not so sure.  Maybe not.”)  It’s appropriate that I am an atheist, not an agnostic, because I believe that objective truth does exist and is generally accessible to everyone.

“The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
Carl Sagan 1984, after others circa 1890.

A list of famous agnostics includes many smart people whom I greatly respect.  Presumably they thought about the problem, doubted the existence of God, but could not bring themselves to the point of denying that God exists.


Agnosticism.

Famous agnostics:

Thucydides, Confucius, Immanuel Kant, David Hume, Charles Darwin, Erico Fermi, Alexander Von Humboldt, Mark Twain, Edwin Hubble, John Tyndall, Marie Curie, Leo Szilard, J. Robert Oppenheimer, Karl Popper, David Attenborough, Thomas Kuhn, Milton Friedman, Stephen Jay Gould, Jacob Bronowski, Neil Gaiman, Noam Chomsky, Matt Groening.

Part of the rationale for agnosticism lies in the fact that knowledge is always incomplete.  There are always unknown aspects of reality.  The progress of science has been a bit like the process of peeling an infinite onion.  After we began to understand the elements as the fundamental building blocks of matter, we learned of fundamental sub-atomic particles – the proton, neutron and electron.  Then we learned that protons and neutrons are not elementary particles, they each consist of three quarks.  Seventeen elementary particles have been recognized, including six varieties of quark.  Similarly, Newtonian ideas about gravity and mechanics were replaced by Einstein’s gravity and  others’ quantum mechanics.  Dark matter and dark energy are additional mysteries; the early evolution of the universe contains paradoxes, etc.  Each layer of reality peels away to reveal a new mystery.  Could the next scientific discovery reveal the face of God?  Agnostics believe so.  They would say that don’t know what we don’t know.

However, the notion of the “unknown unknowns” has limits of reasonable conjecture.  Edward Abbey expressed the reasonable limit of "unknown unknowns" in this aphorism:

“Is there a God?  I don’t know.
Is there an angry unicorn on the dark side of the moon?  I don’t know.”
Edward Abbey

Isaac Asimov's “The Relativity of Wrong” is a brilliant essay on incomplete knowledge.  He shows that incomplete knowledge is not the same as not knowing anything.  The discovery of general relativity does not invalidate Euclidean geometry; it simply expands the domain of geometry to include new truths about non-Euclidean space.  New subatomic particles don’t change the composition of salt from sodium and chlorine.  And uncertainty about the existence of God is something that we can address using logical principles and then reason to a logical conclusion.  

Atheism
In contrast to Agnostics, Atheists actively assert that God does not exist.  Through various processes of reasoning, atheists conclude that there is evidence of absence; i.e., that God does not exist.  Here’s a list of well-known atheists.

Famous Atheists:

Isaac Asimov, Carl Sagan, Anton Chekov, Dave Barry, Henrik Ibsen, Franz Kafka, Jack London, Terry Pratchett, Salman Rushdie, Maurice Sendak, H.L. Menken, Richard Dawkins, David Deutsch, Francis Crick, Richard Feynman, Sigmund Freud, Stephen Hawking, Daniel Kahneman, Bertrand Russell, Clarence Darrow, Andrei Sakharov, Irwin Schrodinger, Alan Turing, Charles Richter, Henri Poincare, Ayn Rand, Linus Pauling, Richard Leakey, Steven Pinker, Jared Diamond, James Watson, Orson Welles, Karl Marx, Oliver Sacks, Kurt Vonnegut, Kenau Reeves, Lisa Randall, Tim Berners-Lee.


The Atheism symbol is derived from a simplified
schematic of atomic structure and the letter "A".

Standards of Proof
Standards of proof depend on why we’re trying to prove something.  Let’s consider four different standards of proof commonly used in society.

  • Preponderance of Evidence: Civil suits in the United States, regarding damages due to a negligent or improper act, are decided according to a lower standard of proof than a criminal case.  A jury in a civil suit must decide their judgment on the preponderance of evidence.  If 51% of the evidence supports the plaintiff, and 49% supports the defendant, the judgment should be decided in favor of the plaintiff
  • Reasonable Certainty:  A higher standard of certainty is required in judicial criminal cases in the United States.  This standard is also called certainty beyond a reasonable doubt.  A defendant in this country is presumed innocent until proven guilty by an overwhelming weight of evidence, such that no reasonable doubt remains about the defendant’s guilt.  Reasonable certainty suggests that no reasonable doubt remains.  This standard is unquantified, but is generally understood by ordinary citizens in society.
  • Unequivocal determination:  Scientific meta-studies aggregate all of the relevant research on a topic.  Examples include the IPCC climate assessment reports and the National Climate Assessment.  After integrating the findings of many studies, the reviewing organization may issue an unequivocal determination on a finding.  This standard requires that the likelihood of the finding is significantly greater than 99%.  (A finding of >99% likelihood, but with reasonable remaining uncertainty is assigned a grade of “virtually certain”.)  When all reasonable objections to the finding have been removed by evidence, the finding is judged to be unequivocal.
  • Mathematical certainty:  A mathematical proof is an even higher standard of proof.  A mathematical proof of an assertion requires that there is no possibility of contradiction within the domain under consideration, reasonable or unreasonable.

In becoming an atheist, to make my assertion that God does not exist, I chose the standard of reasonable certainty.  On the basis of the preponderance of evidence, we would easily conclude there is no God, because there is no rigorous evidence that God exists.  On the other hand, it seems unlikely that atheism could provide mathematical certainty that God doesn’t exist.  However, we do not live our lives according to mathematical certainty.  The standard of reasonable certainty allows us to reason to a conclusion, and would rebut all reasonable (that is, evidence-based) objections.

Proof
It’s easier to prove something exists than that something doesn’t exist.  Still, there are tools we can use.  We can look for internal inconsistencies to disprove an assertion, or inconsistencies between reasonable expectations and reality.  In formal logic, the first is reductio ad absurdum, and the second is modus tollens.  In the first method, if you can reason from a proposition to a contradiction, the proposition is disproved.  In the second, if you can disprove a consequence of the proposition, the proposition is disproved.  (Given the proposition: If P, then Q.  If Q is not true, P is disproved.)  Let’s use the second method and consider the logical consequences if God exists.  

As an aside, I have added a step to modus tollens.  I first consider our expectations of God in terms of character, and then what interactions logically follow from those traits.  Logicially, if P, then Q, then R.  If R is disproved, then Q and P are also disproved.

Please take a moment to think of things that logically follow if God exists.  Find a piece of paper and make a list.  Be serious.  Begin with the assumption that God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and present everywhere, as is the general assertion of Abrahamic religions.  First write down characteristics of God that logically follow from being all-knowing, all-powerful and present everywhere.   Second, write down conditions or events in the world that logically follow from the characteristics that you assigned to God.  You may think of things that are in the world we know, and also things that are not.  Go ahead, take your time.  I’ll wait.

Here is my list of God’s characteristics which logically follow if God really exists.  Given that God is all-knowing, all-powerful and present everywhere, I expect that God would have developed empathy and responsibility.  God knows and understands suffering of living things, and from empathy, should care enough to develop the characteristic of responsibility and fairness for the outcomes in the living world.  From empathy, responsibility, and fairness, God should become caring, reasonable and just.  Here is my list of God's characteristics, if God exists.

  • Empathetic
  • Caring
  • Responsible
  • Reasonable
  • Fair
  • Just

If God is empathetic, responsible, caring, reasonable and just, I would expect that the following conditions would exist in the world, representing the interaction between God and humanity.

  • God would communicate to all of humanity clearly, consistently, and continuously about God’s plans, purpose, desires and instructions for humankind.
  • Revelation of God would be given equally and fairly to all societies, as soon as each society was capable of understanding God.
  • Sacred texts would be consistent across all cultures and times.  Sacred texts would also be complete from the first version, not subject to revision and without internal contradictions.
  • Clear indications of God’s divinity would be given through demonstrable miracles in modern as well as ancient times, meeting scientific standards for observation.
  • God would show reason and justice in God’s own actions or inaction.
  • Sacred literature would also exhibit clear standards of reason and justice.
  • God would mitigate the suffering of innocents.
  • God would clearly answer prayers.  (Note that “answer” does not mean “fulfill”, but instead means “respond”). 

None of those things happen in reality.  They are contradicted by lived experience and all credible reported experience.  They are not true.  How does your list compare?  Does your lived experience and the experience of others confirm or disprove the existence of God?  

This is what David Deutsch means when he says that we should judge God.  Does the world we live in reflect our logical expectations of God?  To me, the logical consequences that should follow from the existence of God don’t exist.  If God existed in the form that human religions have proposed, as an omnipotent, omniscient and all-good being, creator of the universe and humankind, we would have a fundamentally different world and different human experience.

Conclusion
If the Abrahamic God exists, then God is empathetic, responsible, caring, reasonable and just.  God would interact with humans in ways that are reasonable and just.  But God does not communicate clearly and consistently with humanity.  God did not give his revelation to all societies fairly and equally.  Sacred texts across cultures are wildly inconsistent, and contain revisions and corrections to earlier texts (i.e., the New Testament).  There are no modern miracles meeting suitable standards of observation.  God’s actions, as recounted in the Old Testament, are cruel and unjust.  God does not mitigate the suffering of innocent victims of either human or natural misfortune.  God does not clearly respond to prayers.  

God’s interactions with humanity are not empathetic, responsible, caring, reasonable or just.  We should judge God not only on the basis of our own experience, but also the lived experience of others.  We might think about those drowned in the Titanic, victims of Nazi gas chambers and slaughters, Native Americans accepting missionaries and dying of smallpox, victims of famine and war, non-viable babies, and all the tragic events suffered by all of humanity.  We should think about prayers which were met with silence.

The lived experience of humanity contradicts the care that we should expect from an all-powerful being.  Therefore, we must logically conclude that God does not exist.
QED.

----
The image of a path above is from a free internet source.  It is used without permission and not for profit, and will be removed upon request if copyright is not in the public domain.