Reflections and objections to IP's bingo and why most of its contents are not so bad after all
I first encountered this bingo on my post on my own timeline three weeks ago regarding creationism and evolution. I got this bingo from someone named Ian Manuel Delos Santos (which turns out to be a teenage Christian apologist) with two circles on sentences "Most scientists don't believe in God" and "Evolution disproves God." I replied to him by pointing out that he's strawmanning me since I didn't even mention the word "God" on my post (Link on my original post).
I searched for where this was came from, and from digging its sources, I found out that this was came from Inspiring Philosophy's (a Christian apologist YouTuber) Facebook page that was posted way back in 2018 (Link to Inspiring Philosophy's original post). This inspired me to have a review about the contents of this bingo and I want to share my comments to all of you regarding whether these "atheist arguments" are really bad or not. However, this is not necessarily a refutation that aims to debunk all of it, since some of the sentences in it has some points. To my fellow atheists, agnostics, and skeptics here, and including the theists as well, I also want to know your thoughts and objections about this.
Bad "Atheist Argument" Number 1: EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE!
■ I personally see nothing wrong or bad about this. If a person says that his or her claim is true, then he or she has the burden of proof to provide an evidence. If the claim is much more unlikely and preposterous to happen, especially if it contradicts reality or defies the laws of physics, the burden of proof is much heavier. Theists are the one who regard the existence of their god as a true proposition, therefore they have an obligation to prove their claim to be true. But not only that they claim that there is an all-powerful uber-galactic deity that created everything, but they also claim that their deity answers prayers, interfere with human affairs, judges the fate of the dead in the afterlife, doing extraordinary miracles, hates homosexuals and non-believers, wrote an ancient moral book that is without errors and contradictions, and wants to have a personal relationship to everyone of his creations like a father. Those are extraordinary claims, and it definitely require extraordinary evidence. If someone's claim is unfalsifiable, full of assumptions, full of ad hoc excuses, and unsubstantiated, it's automatic that his or her claim is meaningless, valueless, and pragmatically useless. This is especially true when it comes to supernatural claims and metaphysical beings. So no, it's not a bad "atheist argument."
Bad "Atheist Argument" Number 2: MOST SCIENTISTS DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD!
■ I personally don't care if scientists are religious or not. There are a lot of scientists who are atheists and agnostics (like Neils Bohr, Pierre Simon Laplace, Alan Turing, Steven Weinberg, Stephen Hawking, Richard Dawkins, Alfred Nobel, Charles Darwin, Erwin Schrödinger, etc.) and some are theists (like Isaac Newton, Werner Heisenberg, Louis Pasteur, Johannes Kepler, Tycho Brahe, Carolus Linnaeus, etc.). However, their belief or non-belief in a deity doesn't prove or disprove its existence. Just because a scientist believe in a god doesn't prove a god exist, and likewise, just because a scientist doesn't believe in a god doesn't prove a god doesn't exist.
Bad "Atheist Argument" Number 3: WHO CREATED GOD?
■ It's not an argument but I think this is a valid question, especially if theists talk about cosmological and teleological arguments. It's similar to asking "Who designed the designer?" or "Who caused the first cause?" The typical theistic answer to that is "God is eternal. He always existed, and he's spaceless, timeless, and immaterial," and some other metaphysical gibberish like "unmoved mover," "uncaused cause," or "unactualized actualizer," for the purpose of stopping the infinite regresses of motions and causes. Well, that doesn't prove anything. It makes their claim unfalsifiable, and therefore meaningless and pragmatically useless. The point of the question is to point out the contradiction of those who are saying that "everything that begins to exists has a cause" or "every complex thing has an intelligent designer," yet in the same breath, claim that their proposed intelligent designer or uncaused cause somehow is exempted, saying that they always existed or they exists necessarily. I still have a lot of problems with cosmological and teleological arguments but it would just be time-consuming to address them all. Maybe there's something wrong with my analysis, but I don't see any reason why this question is bad.
Bad "Atheist Argument" Number 4: YOU CAN'T PROVE YOUR GOD EXISTS!
■ Theists cannot prove the existence of their god, and I cannot disprove it either. I just reject your claim but that doesn't mean I automatically inquire the burden of proof. It's the theist who have the burden of proof since they are the one who claims that there is a god. However, if an atheist says that there is no god, then he or she too must also inquire the burden of proof to prove its nonexistence.
Bad "Atheist Argument" Number 5: IF YOU WERE BORN IN INDIA, YOU WOULD BE A HINDU
■ The sentence is faulty and badly written because it asserts certainty. It's just a matter of probability. Sure, there are exceptions, but religions often obey boundaries. Whether you deny it or not, geography plays a big role for someone's religiosity. If you were born in India, you would PROBABLY be a Hindu since Hindus are India's major religion; if in Iraq or Pakistan, you would PROBABLY be a Muslim, since Islam is their major religion. If you were born in the Philippines, which is a majority Christian country, it's not surprising that you are also a Christian. But just because Christianity is the current largest religion doesn't mean it is the true religion, that would be an argumentum ad populum fallacy. On the other hand, Islam is the fastest growing religion now and in the near future, it will surpass Christianity. If a religion's truthfulness is based on its number of followers, does that mean Islam is the true religion in the future? Of course, not.
Bad "Atheist Argument" Number 6: JESUS DIDN'T EXIST!
■ Not all atheists are mythicists, and that includes me. I don't deny the existence of Jesus (or should I say, Yeshua or Yashayah) of Nazareth as a historical figure, and although the Gospels are not a reliable and accurate accounts for the life of Jesus, it still have a historical value that we should recognize. This was pointed out well by New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman (he's an agnostic atheist by the way) in his book "Did Jesus Exists?" However, I think that the Yeshua of Nazareth, who was a Jewish rabbi that lived in the 1st century CE Palestine and crucified by the Romans, is not the same as the Jesus Christ that Christians are now worshiping as a Yahweh incarnate. What I don't believe is that Jesus is the son of Jewish god Yahweh, that he is a divine being, that he did all of those miracles as described by the Gospels. I accept the historical Jesus part but not the divine Christ part. I think what most likely happened is that Jesus was just a human preacher, that was legendarized and deified by his fanatical devout followers, and his stories was merely exaggerated through oral tradition before the Gospels were written decades after he died. Perhaps mythicists have good reasons to believed that Jesus didn't really existed, and I still don't reject that possibility.
Bad "Atheist Argument" Number 7: I DON'T CARE, YOUR EVIDENCE JUST ISN'T CONVINCING!
■ This is a bad reason to reject the claims of theists. If an atheist is not convinced of a theist's claim, he or she must provide a rational reason why he or she is not convinced of it. Outright rejecting theistic claims without examining their arguments well and without proving reasons why he or she rejects it doesn't produce fruitful discussions. Plus, saying it kind of shows that you're a condescending asshole.
Bad "Atheist Argument" Number 8: SCIENCE SHOWS MIRACLES CAN'T HAPPEN!
■ Science was not invented to counter religion. It's just a matter of discovering knowledge through empirical observation, rational inferences, and pragmatic applications. The reason why science doesn't accept miracles is that they are cop-out excuses to explain the unknown. It's unfalsifiable, untestable, and unprovable. And besides, the word "miracle" is not coherently defined and has broad and various meanings to every person. Some say that childbirth is a miracle, and heck, some also say the even their mundane act of waking up in the morning is also a miracle. But one thing that they agree upon is that miracle is a divine intervention. If you ask me, the best definition of the word "miracle" is "an act of a divine entity that defies the laws of nature." Scottish philosopher David Hume also defined "miracle" that way (1). Since so far, we don't observed that the laws of nature are indeed disturbed, we have no good reason to think that miracles do happen. Supernatural is, by definition, cannot be proven because if something that is outside of nature can be proven, it is, by definition, not supernatural anymore. Way back centuries ago, diseases, lightnings, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions are believed to be an act of a supernatural entity because they don't know the real reason why they actually happen. Science became our best tool for figuring them out. And just because science hasn't yet have an answer for a certain phenomena, doesn't mean a deity did it. Science doesn't outright show that miracles can't happen, it just gives us a reason why we must consider the idea that miracles don't mean anything.
Bad "Atheist Argument" Number 9: SOME STUDY SOMEWHERE SHOWS PRAYER DOESN'T WORK!
■ I think atheists who are pointing this out are pertaining to the double-blinded Great Prayer Experiment on 2006, conducted by Harvard professor Herbert Benson, and funded by a religious philanthropist Templeton Foundation, aiming to prove the efficacy of intercessory prayer (praying in behalf of someone else). If praying to particular deity actually cures diseases, empirical double-blinded experiments must manifest that. And the results were: There is no difference (2). This is not however the first time people used the scientific method to prove the efficacy of intercessory prayer. British scientist Francis Galton (Charles Darwin's cousin) did it on 1872 to know if the people who pray for the health of the Royal Family make their life span longer (3); Doctors Randolph Byrd and William Harris also did it to their patients in 1988 and 1999; and they have same results: there is no difference (4). The problem with intercessory prayer is that it's unfalsifaible, just like miracles. A patient that was healed by prayer is indiscernible from a patient that was healed through medication or just got better on their own later on. If someone can grow back an amputated limb of an amputee like a salamander just through intercessory prayer and nothing else, maybe I could change my mind. To theists, pray all you want for all I care, no one stops you. If it makes you feel good or if makes your medication faster (perhaps because of placebo effect) (5), then go ahead. But if you want to heal your chronic illness just by prayer and with no scientific medication, maybe you should rethink your decision.
Bad "Atheist Argument" Number 10: SATAN IS REALLY THE GOOD GUY IN THE BIBLE!
■ I think this is just a joke and no atheists (as far as I know) worship Satan. And also, it's not an argument against the existence of the Judeo-Christian god. What some atheists are just pointing out is that the God of the Bible (especially in the Old Testament), is much more malevolent than Satan (just read the Old Testament if you don't know what I mean).
Bad "Atheist Argument" Number 11: CRUSADES!
■ Again, it doesn't prove or disprove the existence of any deity. The whole point of it is that whether God exists or not, religion still did more harm than good. The Crusades happened for religious reasons: primarily, to reclaim Jerusalem from Seljuk Muslims who conquered it. As a result, Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Jews, and Muslims killed each other for a city that they all claim to be theirs. Many atrocities are committed throughout history were done in the name of their god and their religion (such as Inquisition, Islamic terrorism, Kashmir conflict, witch trials, you name it). However, bringing this up to a debate about the existence of God is a red herring and doesn't mean anything.
Bad "Atheist Argument" Number 12: WHAT ABOUT TRIBES IN AFRICA WHO HAVEN'T HEARD OF YOUR GOD?
■ Again, not an argument, but a valid question. If there really is a god and his existence is self-evident, there will only be one religion, one denomination, one sect, one holy book, one absolute truth. But that's not the case at all. We have competing versions of thousands or perhaps millions of gods from different religions, mythologies, and pantheons, and dozens upon dozens of various religions throughout the world, and each religion are divided into hundreds, if not thousands, of denominations and sects that consider each other as damnable heresies, and we have a lot of holy books that all proclaim to be the one true word of their deity, and there is no such thing as absolute truth. If a specific god from a specific religion is the one true god, evangelization and conversion of anyone is unnecessary because it will be just as obvious as a mathematical equation or as obvious as a sun in a lovely afternoon.
Bad "Atheist Argument" Number 13: OMNIPOTENCE PARADOX
■ The Paradox of the Stone (or the Omnipotence Paradox) is not the be-all end-all proof for the non-existence of any deity. It's a matter of faulty and bad definitions for the omni-God (A transcendent God who is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good, which usually pertains to the Abrahamic God). "IF GOD IS OMNIPOTENT (ALL-POWERFUL), CAN GOD CREATE A FINITE PILE OF ROCKS SO HEAVY THAT EVEN GOD HIMSELF CANNOT LIFT IT?" If yes, then God cannot lift a finite pile of rocks that he created, which means he's not omnipotent. If no, then God cannot create such finite pile of rocks, which means, he's not omnipotent. I can personally do it myself. I can go outside, gather rocks until the pile gets bigger and bigger, and eventually the rocks are heavy enough for me to be incapable of lifting. Yet for some reason, if we apply it the the omnipotent God, the contradiction shows up. The problem is not in the challenge, it's in the definition of the word "God" and "omnipotence" itself. Many define omnipotence as "the ability to do anything" or "the ability to do that is logically possible" or "the ability to do that is logically possible provided that it's consistent with one's nature." The two first definitions are both subjected to the paradox while the last one is a meaningless tautology (God can do anything that he can do, God can't do anything that he can't do). The paradox is design to force theists to redefine their terms in order for them to avoid self-contradictory definitions. If they just change their definition from "all-powerful" to "maximally but finitely powerful," the paradox vanishes. But let's face it, why would they do that if they are already ingrained to believe that their god is all-powerful? What most people don't realize is that the Omnipotence Paradox is just a variation of the Russell-Zermelo Paradox, which shows that any attempt to make a naive universal set (like the set of all sets) must restrict it, or else, they will inevitably produce paradoxes through self-referential negations. Any universal set (like "The set of all logically possible actions that an omnipotent God must have the power to do") must either be incomplete but consistent or inconsistent but incomplete, but cannot be both at the same time. That's the fatal flaw of the idea of divine omnipotence. (To elaborate, read the article Expanding the Problems of an Omni-God.)
Bad "Atheist Argument" Number 14: FAITH IS THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE
■ This is an incomplete definition, I think what it is meant is that faith is the belief of something in the light of absence of evidence or despite of the evidence to the contrary. The "I don't care what the evidence says, I'm just gonna believe anyway" mentality. Faith is the most dishonest position when it comes to epistemological pursuit. No one can prove anything by faith. No one can know anything by faith. It's nothing but a wishful thinking. Sure, the word "faith" has so many definitions for so many people. It could mean "trust" (I have a faith that you will win the contest), or "a particular religion" (e.g. Christian faith or Islamic faith), etc. But using faith for the sake of searching for truth? It doesn't mean anything, it doesn't prove anything, it doesn't produce anything, it's meaningless.
Bad "Atheist Argument" Number 15: I DON'T CARE WHAT SCHOLARS SAYS! I CAN READ THE BIBLE MYSELF!
■ There's still a great value for knowing what the Biblical scholars says about the Bible, since they are the ones who have more experience to the subject. It's good to know the historical, cultural, social, and political contexts behind the verses of the Old and New Testament for greater perspective and argumentation of both theists and atheists alike. But critical scholars at least admit the textual errors, contradictions, anachronisms, and inaccuracies of the Bible unlike the apologists who are willing to commit mental gymnastics and dishonest verbal contortions just to defend their cherished but bullshit notion of Biblical inerrancy (the idea that the Bible is perfectly accurate !and without error and contradiction). That's why reading the Bible with the application of critical reading and critical thinking is important for studying it.
Bad "Atheist Argument" Number 16: CONFUSES POSSIBILITY AND PROBABILITY
■ Possibility means something may happen or may not happen, and it's either 1 or 0 (yes or no), while probability means something likely to happen or unlikely to happen, and it ranges between 0 to 1 (the closer to 0, the more improbable, the closer to 1, the more probable). Is it possible that there is a one-eyed nasty monster under your bed waiting to eat you whenever you are asleep but becomes afraid and refuses to eat you when you are moving while you are sleeping? Yes. But is it probable? I don't think so. Is it possible that there is a supernatural uber-galactic powerful and wise creator of the universe who always watching you to masturbate? Yes. But is it probable? I don't think so.
Bad "Atheist Argument" Number 17: CRYING GOD OF THE GAPS FALLACY!
■ I don't see anything bad with that. After all, that's a habit for many theists as science progresses. Many many years ago, and sadly, until now, the God Excuse was already used by people who cannot explain everything, and don't want to bother exploring for it's natural causes. Many thought that lightnings, earthquakes, and diseases are act of a supernatural entity, but as science progresses, we already have better explanations for them, and the gaps of science are getting filled eventually. What happened before the Big Bang? How did life form from non-life? Well, we still don't know for sure, but at least we are trying ti find answers. Merely saying "God did it" for the sake of cognitive closure is an intellectual cop-out and stops us to find for much sensible and falsifiable answer. Just because science cannot yet answer the questions like "where the universe came from" or "how life came from non-life," doesn't mean in any sense that religion can provide one. To paraphrase John Adams, mystery is a great excuse for absurdity.
Bad "Atheist Argument" Number 18: GOD SHOULD JUST SHOW UP AND PROVE HIMSELF TO ME!
■ That is actually just a trivially easy task for a god that can do anything. If the God of the Bible did it to Moses, Abraham, Elijah, and Paul, why can't he do that to me also? If this god wants all of his creations to worship and glorify him, and he has a problem with nonbelievers, he can just have a mass revelation to all atheists that is undeniable and self-evident, and we are more than happy to believe in him. However, that's not the case at all. If this god actually exists, and he warns all atheists and people with other religions that they will all go to hell for not believing in him, but at the same time, leaves no conclusive evidence whatsoever, maybe this god is stupid. That's an awful sign that this god is most likely to be man-made, just like every gods ever.
Bad "Atheist Argument" Number 19: EVOLUTION DISPROVES GOD!
■ No, it's not. And it doesn't prove God either. Maybe a deity created all of life through the process of evolution, and that's fine for many theists. But whether a deity exists or not, the change in the characteristics of a species over several generations that relies on allele variation, genetic mutation, and the process of natural selection is still a fact of nature. Whether you believe that there is a god or not, the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is still an empirically observable, verifiable, credible, sufficient, falsifiable, testable, and pragmatically useful theory, and the majority of scientists and rational thinking people in the world has no trouble accepting it (unless you're a Young Earth creationist).
Bad "Atheist Argument" Number 20: YOU JUST WANT GOD TO EXIST!
■ Personally, I want to believe in a god. It's nice to have the creator of the universe to be my father figure, a shoulder to cry on, and to be my lifetime guide (but I don't like the God of the Bible because he's a narcissistic malevolent asshole). However, merely wishing for something to be true doesn't make it true in objective reality. The reasons that theists offered are all bad, unfalsifiable, meaningless, and cop-out speculations that is mostly based out of ignorance. Embracing the harsh reality is much better than conforming to a satisfying delusion, because I care about what is actually true rather than what I just want to be true.
Bad "Atheist Argument" Number 21: "INVISIBLE SKY DADDY!" OR "FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER!"
■ Those are just designed to mock the religious people. Although mockery and ridicule is essential for questioning ideas and beliefs, sometimes it's counterproductive if we aim a fruitful discussion between the opposing sides. But not gonna lie, they are fun to use, but not when we are having serious discussions. So, all hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster! Be touched by his noodly appendage, R'Amen.
Bad "Atheist Argument" Number 22: YOUR GOD WANTS TO TORTURE ME IN HELL FOREVER!
■ This sentence is not meant to affirm the existence of any god, especially the Judeo-Christian god. I think the point of it is to point out that if your god has a problem with people who don't believe in him, and even threatening them with eternal torment for them mere crime of disbelief, and yet still doesn't provide any conclusive evidence, there's an awful lot of chance that this god might be just a man-made god invented by people to scare others who don't share their beliefs, just like every god ever. And besides, it also points out that the idea of a god being an all-loving and all-merciful entity, but at the same time, sending people to hell for simply not believing in his existence, is a paradox.
Bad "Atheist Argument" Number 23: YOU JUST BELIEVE BECAUSE YOUR PARENTS RAISED YOU THIS WAY
■ Again, there are a lot of exceptions for that, but it's undeniable that parental influence and the community that surrounds you has a big impact for someone's religiosity. If your mother and father are both Christians, there's a lot of chance that you will become a Christian as well. To atheists, agnostics, and skeptics, if you want to know why a believer believes his or her religious beliefs, instead of assuming that he or she believe it just because his or her parents raised him or her that way, just ask them why they believe it. It's not that hard to do.
Bad "Atheist Argument" Number 24: HOW DO YOU KNOW IT'S YHWH AND NOT THOR AND ZEUS?
■ Once again, it's not an argument, but it's a valid question. To paraphrase Homer Simpson, what if you worship the wrong god and every time you pray to it, you're just making the true one madder and madder? Ancient Greeks and Scandinavians used to devoutly worshiped Zeus and Thor as one of their gods, just as a Muslim devoutly worships Allah and a Hindu devoutly worships Krishna and a Christian devoutly worships Jesus. If you are a Christian, then you know what it's like to not believe in the Aztec god Quetzalcoatl or in the Egyptian god Osiris because you are not an Aztec or an Egyptian, and we atheists don't believe in those deities too.We all reject the existence of the other gods that other people used to worship and atheists simply added one god further to the very long list of non-existent deities. Once they understand why they dismiss all the other gods, they will understand why I dismiss their god as well.
Sources:
(1) From Of Miracles in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding by David Hume
Date Published: June 25, 2020
Comentarios