The Antichristian Phenomenon

As the only person who seems actively interested in social science beyond the layman perspective, I’ve come to realize that even though this site is about religion (and the lack thereof); we have written nothing about what we mean by religion and how it’s possible to study various religious groups and organizations. One of the reasons why could possibly be because religion is a very troublesome term in and by itself. It is not constructed with a scientific perspective in mind, so when people refer to religion it can have vastly different meanings, especially within the academia. As a social anthropologist, it is not possible for me to attempt to frame in all these different definitions within social science, but I can at least start by referring to the most common definitions used in anthropology.

The broadest definition in anthropology of what a religion is “is a belief in Spiritual Beings” (Bowie, 2006). This seems to agree with the more common and general definition of religion in everyday language. When someone says that he or she is religious, it is most likely a reference to a belief in a spiritual being, for example the Christian God. From a philosophical perspective, spiritual can be replaced with metaphysical, and it becomes possible to understand this being as existing beyond or after the physical (world) . What is implied here is that this spiritual being is more often than not a single substance on its own residing outside the universe as we know it. The problem with this definition is that there are religions that can be classified as atheistic in nature. A classical example includes Hinduism while more modern examples are modern Satanism and thelema. Pantheistic religions are not necessarily included in this definition either, especially the naturalistic strain. So while Bowie’s definition is useful especially when studying more classical religions, it also leaves something more to be desired.

Clifford Geertz offers another which doesn’t refer to the actual belief system itself, but rather the social meaning a religion can carry to those who practice it. To him, religion is

(1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.

The positive side of this definition is that religion certainly fulfils such a social role in different societies. Christianity wasn’t really that questioned as an authentic and realistic belief system until the Enlightenment which led to such beliefs that the earth was indeed flat and in the center of the universe. Atheistic religions such as modern Satanism and thelema are also safely encompassed because they too function in such a manner to the practitioners. The biggest critique against this definition is how it is possible to basically take any system of symbols and make it seem like a religion. Is it a religion to be a vegetarian? To be a vegetarian usually includes following specific norms and ethics which are felt as true to those who are professed vegetarians.

Same problems arise when attempting to refer to how the word religion is described in a dictionary:

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic . religious rites.
8. Archaic . strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one’s vow .

It is possible to ignore point 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. So instead I will start by addressing the first point. The biggest problem with this definition is that superhuman agencies should preferably be involved, and as discussed against Bowie’s definition, same critique applies here. It also assumes that religious practice must contain some kind of rites of rituals. In this day and age where individual spirituality is becoming increasingly popular , it is questionable whether it is needed for a person to be classified as religious. A deist is a very typical and good example of this. A deist is not necessarily a part of any organization, does not necessarily perform and rites and rituals in his or her worship and a deist might even follow a typical scientific approach when it comes to the creation of the physical universe. It is therefore highly questionable whether these beliefs can actually be called “beliefs” except for the actual belief in a spiritual being, in this case a deity of unknown properties. Pantheists also fall short in this definition since there’s nothing that says that a pantheist cannot follow a typical scientific description of the universe, and the most common interpretation of pantheism usually excludes any form of spiritual being. It becomes even more troublesome when studying modern Satanism which falls short on everything but on a moral code that dictates how people should attempt to live, but even then there is such a large difference between individual practitioners even this point can be questioned.

A fault of this definition therefore lies in its assumption that a person must be a member of a religious institution or organization and how it presupposes a belief in a spiritual being in order to be classified as religious.

2 is very similar to Geertz’ definition and same critique applies there. Don’t members of the Weightwatchers agree on certain fundamental beliefs and practices of how to lose weight? Here I mean that it is actually a belief to consider it better and healthier to lose weight than not to, as there are plenty of serious studies showing that the relationship between obesity and unhealth are not as crystal clear as have been previously believed.

3 is not very different from 2 except that it attempts to frame in a more global and general perspective, so same critique again applies. Even if the way of how to lose weight may be different among those who attempt to eat according to different diets, they all seem to share and espouse similar ideas why overweight is bad and what general methods to use to lose weight.
To sum it up, there is no real good definition of what a religion is as all of them got some major critique against them for not being inclusive enough or for being too vague and broad. It is however possible to attempt to find suitable definitions depending on what kind of definitions one is looking for, and then have an open discussion why that definition would be better over the other.

Welcome! If you're new here, before you open your mail program to fire up a nasty email, you may want to first read our FAQ to avoid being ignored. If you like the content, we hope you will to subscribe to our RSS feed. Stay open minded!
If you don't like the content of this website on the other hand, kindly fuck off.

The most important reason for my atheism is the absence of both evidence and arguments (both sound and valid) for the existence of God. This can be extended for for my rejection of essential passages in the Bible which endeavour to establish the incidence of certain events in world history. These span the creation myth from the book of Genesis to Jesus’ miracles in the Gospel books. But parallel to the empirical criticism of such truth claims, there are also reasons why I reject Christianity as a collection of philosophical doctrines. Never minding whether the truth claims in the Bible actually stack up, I want to criticize some of the more abstract ideas tied into this religion. In this short essay, I want to criticise Christian ethics – or rather lack thereof, which I will explain in full.

It is a common argument by theists that without a god, there are no morals and everything is permitted. In the absence of a god who sets a standard of wrong and right, man is argued to be clueless as to whether, for example, murder is a good thing or not. I will not go very deep into alternative approaches of morality, but simply analyse the abovementioned position and draw conclusions from it. But first I should establish the specific ethical theory that is immanent in Christianity (but which is also true for Islam and Judaism). In these montheistic religions, the god is the giver of the moral law. Because God is said to be benevolent, all-knowing and all-wise, he is the giver of moral laws which are absolute and eternal. This idea of ethics is commonly referred to as Divine Command Theory (DCT). I will focus on two main problems with DCT.

The first one is in the form of a dilemma, originally found in Plato’s dialogues, posed by a philosopher called Euthyphro. It can be adapted to fit a core problem of DCT as found in philosophical theism in the following way:

“Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?”

This is Euthypro’s Dilemma^[I] . The question is fundamental and must be answered, but both answers pose serious problems for DCT. I will first discuss the second part of the dilemma.

If what is moral is so because it is commanded by God, then that means that anything that God commands is moral by definition. Whatever God commands to be moral is arbitrary, thereby reducing God’s benevolence to meaning absolutely nothing. Gottfried Leibniz wrote^[II] “So in saying that things are not good by any rule of goodness, but sheerly by the will of God, it seems to me that one destroys, without realizing it, all the love of God and all his glory. For why praise him for what he has done if he would be equally praiseworthy in doing exactly the contrary?” And that sums the problem up quite nicely – if we choose to answer the problem by saying whatever God commands is moral, we forfeit any rational consideration of morals and allow ourselves to be subjected to the whim of God. If God were to command that the rape of altar boys is an moral imperative, those who accept DCT would have to accept that in that scenario that action is indeed moral, and have to try their very best to make sure as many altar boys are raped as possible. The consequences of accepting DCT are clear: it replaces any moral predispositions one has by the perceived commands of God, without allowing the intellect to evaluate them. I reject this as I perceive it as nothing less than moral self-enslavement.

So what if we were to accept that what is good is commanded by God because it is good? Then we are left with the question: well what is God good for? In this possible response to the dilemma God is the messenger who tells us what is good in itself. However: morality itself is independent of God, as without God the moral laws that God otherwise would communicate to us in his commands would still exist and be in effect. However, there is still a problem with this approach, and the problem is epistemic in nature. The same problem arises for the other approach, but it is of less importance there because of other objections. Here, however, we must deal with how we can know what God commands. A theist might point to scriptures and claim we can find what God commands in there, but in practice this is a futile attempt. Thousands of years of interpreting scriptures has lead to various religious denominations that have decided upon mutually exclusive moral laws based on what is according to them the correct canonical collection.  Furthermore, there are moral problems in the modern world for which no guidance can be found in these scriptures, revealing a moral vacuity.

What is interesting about Christianity is that ethics based on DCT is mostly prevalent in the Old Testament. The New Testament, however, seems to also place importance on a different meta-ethical system which focuses on having certain virtues rather than following certain rules – virtue ethics. This is explicitly expressed in Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount^[III]. Some virtues that are blessed by Jesus are “poorness in spirit” (“humility”), “meekness”, “righteousness”, “mercy” and  “purity of heart”. Jesus also blesses those who are persecuted, those who are peacemakers and those who mourn. In other passages, Jesus emphasizes on virtues like “love” and “service”. In virtue ethics the emphasis is on the person, who is good if he/she embodies these virtues, rather than the actions of the person. This could partly explain the reluctance of Christian denominations to require abiding the full Mosaic Law, and why these denominations place emphasis on “The Ten Commandments”, rather than all 613 of them^[IV]. Virtue ethics has its own problems, like internal consistency (should one embody benevolence and tell a white lie, or embody truthfulness and tell a hurtful truth?)  and a lack of basis and therefore external inconsistency, a foremost example of which is voiced by Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche rejected various Christian values (virtues can be understood as are moral values) such as pity and faith, calling these decadent values as they are antagonistic to Nietzsche’s Will to Power and the higher sort of man^[V]. There is no basis for deciding which set of values/virtues are better than another.

Any system of ethics which does not rely on rational analysis of its precepts, but rather on obedience and authority, is inherently prone to abuse, and should therefore be rejected. We are all moral people, and I am saddened when I see people defend the tyrannical actions of the Old Testament god. I not only believe that I am more moral than that god, I also believe that people who are defending this god are more moral than it. It is exactly as Steven Weinberg said^[VI]:

“With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion. “

Footnotes

1. Sometimes also called Euthypro’s Problem [↩]
2. Discourse on Metaphysics (1686) [↩]
3. Matthew 5:3-12 [↩]
4. The 613 Mitzvot [↩]
5. The Antichrist (1888) [↩]
6. Conference on Cosmic Design, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, D.C. in April 1999 [↩]

Agnosticism seems very popular at the moment. I think it is mostly so for the wrong reasons. I get the feeling that a lot of people who identify themselves as agnostics are doing so only to take a kind of moral high ground that, to them, equivocates with a neutral position on the issue at hand. I have seen many agnostics say something like this:

You can’t prove that God exists, nor that God doesn’t exist, therefore both theism and atheism are wrong and you should be agnostic

I find three things at fault with this position,  which I will elaborate on in the following paragraphs. I will sometimes refer to above position as “popular agnosticism” to distinguish it from actual agnosticism. I will end with what a proper application of agnosticism might be, but also argue why I think it’s pretty useless all-round.

• Agnosticism is not a position on the existence of God

It seems that agnosticism has been snuck in to form a trilemma on the issue of God’s existence. To many people, the possible positions on this issue are either atheism, theism, or agnosticism. This is a false trilemma for two reasons. Firstly, because no ground is left over for agnosticism. You either believe God exists (theism), or you don’t (a-theism – I emphasize on purpose). So what is left over? Nothing! This has to do with the second reason that it is a false trilemma, namely the untrue notion that agnosticism even is a position on the existence of God. It simply isn’t, as it is a position on what knowledge is attainable. Going a little bit into etymology, “gnosis” means “knowledge” which means that “agnosticism” can be roughly translated to the position that something is not knowable. Agnosticism can be compatible with both atheism and theism – I don’t accept theism but I don’t claim to know that theism is false: I am an agnostic atheist.

Agnosticism isn’t somewhere in the middle on the spectrum between atheism and theism. I would even argue that there isn’t a spectrum at all on this level of the issue. There is a simple proposition: “God exists”, and you can either agree (theism) or not (atheism). There are no other positions, by virtue of the logical principle of the excluded middle. Both theism and atheism are positions that one can have, and it doesn’t matter how good or bad the reasons are for you having them.

• Popular agnosticism is used for dodging the question

So now that we have established that agnosticism isn’t even a tenable position in regards to the existence of God, it will become increasingly difficult to critique the position because the original paraphrase I gave is making less and less sense. At the moment, we can substitute the definition of agnosticism into the citation and read:

You can’t prove that God exists, nor that God doesn’t exist, therefore both theism and atheism are wrong and you should have the position that it is unknowable whether God exists or not

But that shows another flaw, because (a)theism isn’t necessarily the belief that God’s existence is (dis)proven. It thus misrepresents the positions of theism and atheism, and shows perhaps a reluctance to commit to either theism or atheism. I do not believe anyone can be exactly on the fence between the two possible positions. Even if it is just a gut feeling, you can choose between the two. It is childish to say “no, I won’t choose either of the possibilities”. And of course there is no proof, as I have previously written and explained that proofs only exist in formal systems. Personally, I think a lot of people who identify themselves as agnostics because they are reluctant to bear the stigma of the atheist. Though I understand this, I still think it is a form of cowardice.

• Popular agnosticism is special pleading

Popular agnosticism is also a form of special pleading, as it is only used with reference to the issue of God’s existence. You don’t hear about faerie agnostics, or Santa Clause agnostics. Popular agnosticism is used uniquely for the God-question. But why is it so? There are no grounds on which the question “Does God exist?” is different from the question “Does Santa Clause exist?” other than the subject of the inquiry. You can’t prove Santa Clause exists, or that he doesn’t exist any more than it is the case with God. Why then still reserve this for God? It is blatantly a case of special pleading.

Proper agnosticism

So when is it useful to have a position of agnosticism? First of all, we have to have a decent definition of when something is considered knowledge - before we can say whether something is possible to be an item in what we consider knowledge. What is knowledge is is a question home to the philosophical field of epistemology, and very briefly I can ambiguously suggest that knowledge is the product of empirical investigation and rational discourse of the empirical results. Knowledge doesn’t even have to be complete – as long the knowledge fits whatever observations have been made so far, and are reasonably not the antithesis of other knowledge that is “better established” – and it can even turn out after more observation that prior knowledge is false and that it requires to be superseded with new knowledge: a new set of ideas, rules, or paradigm (knowledge isn’t necessarily true). It is perhaps shortest to say that knowledge is produced by science, the best application of the aforementioned methodology.

This is different from the stricter requirement in the original paraphrase, which demanded proof and not mere evidence. If we were to say that knowledge needs proof to be established, then we are agnostic about everything outside of formal systems. To me, such a requirement of knowledge renders agnosticism as a useless term that communicates nothing because it can be applied to (almost) everything. So if we were to take my understanding of knowledge, we can say that agnosticism can apply only to things that fall outside of the scope of science: outside of empirical investigation. If we can not empirically pursue a question then we can’t produce knowledge about it: we are agnostic about it.

An example of proper agnosticism is when “God” is defined as something that would prohibit scientific inquiry. If God is a being who is omnipotent, it is immediately outside the scope of science, because this God can play with the empirical evidence all it wants. Anything and nothing can be indicative of the existence of such a being. Hence, we are inherently agnostic about it. Parallel to agnosticism about this, I have never heard any argument that would make such a being logically necessary to exist, hence I am also atheistic towards it. But when you would suggest that “God” is a bearded man living on clouds in the sky, it is open to scientific inquiry. There has never been seen such a man, thus I am a gnostic atheist about this particular concept.

Preface

This article will deal with the ideology of positivism, rationalism and Karl Popper’s idea of good science. It will also further deal with why “Praying for person X made person X well from ailment Y” is not being a good form of science, but pseudoscience at best, particularly when presented in a scientific manner.

Definitions

Postivism is a scientific idelogy that we can only produce good science with the help of empirical data, most notably, by gathering facts. Is something not a fact, then we cannot consider it to be a positivist claim. So if I make a statement that the earth is flat when we have clearly observed that the earth isn’t, it is a false statement simply because it is not based on empirical evidence and because it is not a given fact. If I however say that the earth is round, it is a good positivt claim because we have good supoprting evidence that the earth is round and people have observed it as such, we can thus consider it a fact and the statement to be true.

Rationalism is a specific scientific ideology in turn developed by Karl Popper, stemming from the idea of positivism. Karl Popper’s goal with developing rationalism was to first of all debunk pseudoscience, secondly to set up a border when something can be considered good science and when it isn’t. Karl Popper defined good rationalist science as “finding faults in the problemsolving”* and “by speaking to thinking and experience rather than to moods and emotion”*.1

So the biggest difference between positivism and rationalism lies in that positivism does not necessarily change a theory when the empirical data does not fully support it, but may use help-theses, something Karl Popper despised. Rationalism then, is the complete reforming of a theory when new data is found, or when the theory is incapable of explaining the current data properly without using help-theses which are applied ad hoc.

The good positivist or rationalist science

Then how would positivist or rationalist science look like? A positivist would try to study the empirical data as good as possible and then make factual statements about those, a rationalist would look at the same empirical data but is more interested in being critical to how to explain the data and finding faults in this explanation while at the same time trying to appeal to logic and experience rather than that of emotion. This brings us to the main point, namely why praying, as evidence for the existence of god, is not evidence and why it is not scientific.

Example

One of the most common stories you hear from Christians as evidence for god is when they make a statement that praying works and they’ve seen it. Now, let’s assume ourselves in the role of a Christian practioneer who is praying for a relative being seriously ill, to the point where this illness is endangering this person’s life. As a good Christian, we are praying every day for this relative to become better, but the doctor’s treatment seems to be negative. Instead this person seems to become more ill than well. Suddenly though, there is a turn of events, without any seemingly explainable cause, the relative is cured from the illness and our conclusion must be that it was the work of god. Or wait, is it really?

A positivist would not accept this explaination, because obviously the empirical data has not been studied enough. The primary data here being our now cured relative, and why this relative all of sudden became better when it seemed that the medication made no difference. There are many factors to consider, such as our relative’s physiology. Maybe our relative really didn’t need any medication, because this person’s physiology worked in such a way that this person was supposed to overcome this illness regardless. Maybe the doctors gave this person the wrong medication. This cannot be outruled either. Doctors are human and humans make errors. The doctors gave our relative the wrong diagnosis and thus also the wrong treatment. A variant of the previous point, but happens all the time as well. A positivist would then start to debunk these theses by investigating the empirical data related to them, such as taking blood samples from the relative and studying them, or asking the doctors whether they changed the medication or if they believe they missdiagnosed the relative.

A rationalist would of course also do the above, but would be even more interested to see if we can trace any fault of logic in the original reasoning. It seems we can find quite a few of them. First of all, we cannot be certain god exists, as we have no evidence for this. Not necessarily using Occham’s Razor here, but a rationalist would examine the claim how probable it would be that god intervened and did so because of our prayers. Secondly, we also have the issue of prayers themselves. In the Bible it states that god knows everything, god is omniscient. Would it not be enough then to just think that we want to save our relative for god to respond to such a need? God would know even without having us praying, thus, it actually seems more logical that it was not the praying that was the actual cause. Thirdly though, and probably the greatest issue with this example is the emotional part of the argument. A religious person would of course want to believe it was god, it speaks that the religious person’s needs. It has thus an emotional appeal, rather than it being rational. So while a religious person may be overlooking some logical inconsistencies in their problemsolving when it comes to such statements as “My prayers saved my relative from dying”, the reason why they would believe such a statement is more because of the emotional appeal, they want it to be true, not necessarily because it is true. So when Christians make statements like these, they are not scientific in their approach, because they overlook great many faults in their reasoning.

Legend
* – My translation

Sources
Vår Tids Filosofi, Part 2

I often come across statements like the following: “Prove x” or “Prove not x” – most often in the form “Prove God exists” or “Prove God doesn’t exist” (I will be using this example throughout the article). I get a bit tired about this because people do not seem to understand when something can be proven, when it can’t be, what the restrictions of evidence are and when something is a scientific question or not.

Proof yields certainty within a formal system

There is no such thing as proof in the context of every-day life. A proof is something by which we can say something is definitely so, or definitely not so. This means 100% certainty. So how does one get 100% certainty? The history of epistemology, the philosophy of knowledge, seems to indicate that such a thing is impossible with one exception (See Descartes’ meditations) and that in all other cases there is always room for doubt. If that is the case, how can proofs exist, as they should be things by which we attain absolute certainty?

Proofs do exist, but you have to keep in mind that these proofs are derived in the context of a certain framework. Such a framework assumes basic rules and basic truths, from which more truths are derived. We call this framework a formal system (or a logic(al) system). More formally, we say that a formal system has a deductive system, consisting of the basic truths (axioms) and the basic rules (rules of inference). The formal system also has a formal language.

Mathematics as an example of a formal system

This may sound vague, so let’s just take the best example: mathematics. Mathematics is a formal system. Mathematics has a language: it has symbols (e.g. x), numbers (e.g. 1), and operators (e.g. +) and grammar in which these components can occur (e.g. 1+2=3, but not =12+=). Note that 1+4=6 is a mathematical statement, even though it is untrue (which can be proven!) – analogous to this is that “I eat ideas until I am born.” is a grammatically correct sentence, even though a non-sensical one. Mathematics also has a deductive system. This deductive system has axioms (ground truths) such as Peano’s axioms, which describe the ground truths for arithmetic. The deductive system also has inference rules; rules by which other truths can be derived from the ground truths. Note that the ground truths are assumed to be true; they can not be proven within the formal system.

Chess as an example of a formal system

A different and perhaps more appreciable example of a formal system is a game like chess. Chess has a language: these are not symbols like in mathematics, but the chess pieces themselves, and the playing board. The axioms correspond to the starting positions of the pieces. It also has rules for what movements are allowed for what pieces. A configuration of chess pieces can be said to be “grammatically correct” if it can be reached using the movement rules for the various chess pieces. If a configuration is found that can not be reached using the rules for chess, you can say that it is not a chess configuration, just like we can say that =12+= is not a mathematical statement. In this regard chess puzzles are completely equivalent to mathematical problems. Chess being a formal system is the reason a chess game can be described with a string of coded chess notations, and the reason why computers can play chess.

Back to the weird statements people make. When you read that somebody has “proven that God (does not) exist(s)”, you should immediately think the following things:

1. This person is talking about proof, so this person is using a formal system.
2. In this formal system, “God” is a formally defined concept
3. In this formal system, “existence” is a formally defined concept or attribute for formally defined concepts
4. Using the deductive system of the formal system, this person has shown that “God” has the attribute “existence”

But of course, that is never the case. These people confuse the context of the formal system with the context every-day life: e.g. the “God” concept within the formal system with something that exists outside of that formal system. When you are not talking mathematics or logic, chances are small your use of the word ‘proof’ is correct. That also means that somebody who is trying to convince you that God exists, you must not ask him to “prove it”

Evidence never yields certainty, but does not require a formal system

Evidence is very different from proof. Whereas proof gives you certainty about something within a formal system, evidence can never give you any certainty. It only assigns more certainty of the truth to that which it is evidence of. If there is a lot of evidence in favour of a particular idea, and little or no evidence to suggest the opposite, we should assign a large certainty that that idea is true. David Hume communicates this idea concisely in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding when he writes “A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence”.

Scientific evidence

In a pursuit of understanding the universe, we are quickly moved toward scientific evidence. Scientific evidence is evidence for a scientific concept, and which is in accordance with scientific requirement. Eyewitness testimony is considered important evidence in court, but it is of no value in the scientific community, for reasons of possible bias and the shortcomings of human perception. Therefore, eyewitness testimony is not scientific evidence. This is largely understood, but that it can only pertain to a scientific concept is often forgotten. How often have you heard atheists demand for scientific evidence for God? I even asked for this myself, until I better understood the concepts I am trying to explain in this article.

“Scientific evidence for God” implies that “God” is a scientific concept. This is certainly possible, but depends entirely on what “God” means. I have never seen a clear definition of God, but I do often encounter attributes of this “God”. One of these attributes is omnipotence: the ability to do everything. There are various degrees of omnipotence that are argued over by theologians, but I’ll overlook this for the sake of clarity. I ask you: if God can do anything, what then can count as scientific evidence of God? The answer is either everything or nothing. In both cases, we can learn nothing at all. Omnipotence is an attribute that the domain of science can not deal with. If God has this attribute, then there can exist no scientific evidence for God, and it is therefore ignorant to ask for it.

Recommendations

So what to do? In short, this article argues that if people want to prove God’s existence, they must first define what “God” and “existence” are within a particular formal system. You can safely disregard any so-called proofs that do not explicitly offer this information. I have also argued that there can exist no scientific evidence for any being that is omnipotent. You can safely disregard any so-called scientific evidence for omnipotent beings. What are we left with? That is something for theists to solve. It seems that “God” is such an obscure concept that, if it possibly exists, it bears little to no resemblance to the entities described in various holy books. Until new information is released, I shall remain an unimpressed non-theist.

I had a lecture the other week when one of my teachers came to talk about his fieldwork he conducted on West Java, studying the (religious) meaning of fasting. Java’s biggest religion is Islam, so thus, one would conclude that the ritual of fasting bears great importance in the daily lives of the Java people. Once my teacher started to investigate what fasting truly is however, it turned out that fasting wasn’t just a religious rite practiced during certain holidays such as Ramadan, but students said to him that they would fast a couple of days before an important exam, or that if they were going to an interview for a job they really wanted, they would fast before as well. Obviously, fasting isn’t just a religious expression, although religious leaders put great emphasis that fasting should only be performed. Then what is fasting? Fasting is in its simplest form an expression to control the body, that is, what goes and and what comes out. In anthropology we may call these things substances. Food may be considered a specific form of substance, and by fasting, a person can control what form of food they eat and don’t. It thus requires some kind of self-control of the body. But why the importance to control the physical body? I didn’t think much more about it then, until I read some posts here on the Anti-Christian Phenomenon Website, and I realized that this is a very common reoccuring theme in most world religions. Judaism may advocate for ascetism, and so do more extreme variants of Hinduism. In Christianity the step is taken even further and there is a whole system built around the idea of sin, which basically is a guideline of what is accepted behavior in how to control the mind and body. One explanation can be that if one is able to control one’s body, then one is also able to control the mind, and the logical conclusion would be that one will naturally lead a more healthy and happy life when being able to muster this kind of self-control.

The idea is far from new, and we may even find notions of this in other philosophical systems that may seem completely unrelated to religion at all. Friedrich Nietzsche spoke about his concept of the übermensch, the super human, and that we can only become truly free and be able to take control of our own lives once we discard such notions as religion. In the humanist movement a less metaphorical term is used, and it is simply just called empowerment. Once again, by discarding such things as religion can we become truly free and take control of our own lives. In the Enlightenment movement one could only become truly free by accepting rationality and common sense. Through logic and reason alone are we capable of realizing our own individual freedom. In Taoism, we can only become truly free by understanding our own importance in a holistic system, and realizing that it is not about I, the subject, but about we, as a single entity. The system in Taosim in how we can achieve true balance with the world is also very intricate, and advocate strong ideas of how to act and behave in different situations.

Maybe it is easier to understand why some people may turn to religion in the light of being an excuse to find self-empowerment which they alone failed in achieving without an intricate system such as religion with clear rules to follow in how such empowerment can be reached. I will not try to go into and debate as to why self-empowerment may be so intrinsically important to human beings, and why we ultimately still like to believe in the idea of our own prsonal freedom and power to achieve things we want to achieve, nor is it in the scope or interest of this website, but if religion offers a possibility to reach such self-empowerment, then it has surely succeeded. With that said, obviously religion is not for everybody, as shown with my examples of philosophical movements and ideas that are unrelated to religion and at times even strongly opposed such a notion, so maybe ultimately the reason why some people may seem to change religious affiliations as if they were changing clothes may lie in that the system they just joined simply wasn’t the way for them to achieve this empowerment within, may it be for philosophical or other reasons. For example, I really don’t find the notion attractive of living an ascetic life or fast once a year for a month, but if making a claim that my non-religious stance has helped to make me feel that I am in control of my own life, I will answer honestly that yes, I do believe so. I am not going to deny that religion ultimately is a powerful tool when it comes to finding self-empowerment, if it wasn’t, I am sure a lot less would be religious than what we are currently seeing today, the problem is of course all the other ideas that religion imposes that I cannot as easily accept as something intrinsically good, and if religion truly is representing a system for self-empowerment, maybe it would be time to develop something new that does not include ideas of human rights 2000 years ago.

Aristotle was one of the first philosophers to really try and tackle the field of causality. In Metaphysics, Aristotle proposes four different causes. These are the causa materialis, the material cause; causa formalis, the formal cause; causa efficiens, the efficient cause and the causa finalis, the final cause. For this essay, it is not important to go into the first two. Also note that our current, every-day use of the word “cause” is only one of these four, namely the efficient cause, which denotes the agent that brings something about. If A necessarily leads to B, A is the efficient cause of B. The remaining cause which is of importance in this essay is the final cause, which denotes the purpose or intended end of a certain action. If A is a necessary step to achieve B, B is the final cause for A.

It may be apparent that these causes are different, yet related. The most important aspect is the directionality these causes imply. It is this directional property that I will be focusing on a lot. One could say that the efficient cause looks from the past towards the present, whereas the final cause looks from the present towards the future. You could say that the efficient cause is the answer to the question “how”, and that the final cause is the answer to the question “why”. Another important aspect in which these two causes are different is intentionality. In case of the efficient cause, no goal is necessarily implied, whereas in the case of the final cause there is. A conscious entity is required for a final cause, as actions result from being a necessary step towards a goal.

Having said that, I assume bells have already started ringing. This description of two particular Aristotelian categories of causality will remind many of how the relationship between science and religion is often perceived: science answers the “how” questions whilst religions answers the “why” questions. In other words: science provides efficient causes, whilst religion provides final causes. The way science provides these answers is through the scientific inquiry: a method applied to a domain in which causal homogeneity and methodological naturalism are assumed. Therefore we find a directionality from past to future in science, as well as an absence of intentionality. This is why God can never scientifically be said to be a cause of anything, because an agent with a mind does not necessarily behave the same way the next time (this is also why creationism is inherently unscientific). Science is constrained, but progressive; assuming that the accumulation of information is higher than the loss of data, and assuming that there are people with novel ideas once in a while, we can expect more accurate models of reality emerge from science over time. In other words: For more accuracy, look later in the scientific archives.

Religion is different; as it (though not exclusively) provides answers to questions concerning final causes. The idea that religion is closely connected to this category of cause are supported by often invoked sayings such as “God has a plan for us all” or “God works in mysterious ways”; but also by concepts of “the greater good” and “God’s will”. The intentions of a deity for the future are the most important factor for providing an answer to the “why” of the events that occur in the present. Therefore we find a directionality from future to present in religion, as well as a clear presence of intentionality. The method that religion uses for discerning the answers it provides are wholly contingent upon interpretation of the “revealed truths” contained within “sacred books”. This means there is no epistemological basis for answers stemming from religions: they are wholly contingent upon an assumption of authority. Unlike science, religion is not progressive, but static. The prevailing method for one who wants to analyse religious answers is to look at the original texts. The earliest manuscripts are more authoritative than later ones, because these might contain alterations introduced by scribes. In other words: For more accuracy, look earlier in the religious archives.

There is also something else going on, because religious answers do not have to be constrained. Ideas spawned from religion do not even have to be consistent with logic. Such examples are abundant in theistic religions. Take for example the position of Descartes about the omnipotence paradox (“Can God create a rock which He cannot lift?”): he posits that God has absolute omnipotence, being above logic and able to do even that which is logically self-contradictory. The other attributes the Abrahamic god is often accredited with also result in logical paradoxes. These are the coexistence of God’s omniscience and free will, and the problem of evil (the coexistence of God’s omnibenevolence and suffering). Luckily, not all theologians are as drunk on God as Descartes was. They acknowledge logic as a constraint on God, as well as on the answers religion provide. As such, there exists room for debate, which is wholly absent with those who side with Descartes.

One has to wonder, though: if God is constrained by logic, is he then not also constrained by the natural laws that humans discovered through the application of logic and the epistemological toolbox we call the scientific method? And if that is so, why not recognize the basis to religious answers is logically fallacious to start with? This is one of the important questions in examining the relationship between religion and science. Though both give answers to different Aristotelian causes in principle, religion often moves beyond it’s turf. This may be evident in religiously inspired pseudo-science, such as creationism; but also in writings by philosophers who drank the God poison. On the other hand, science has been conquering land from religion on the battlefield of ideas. Questions that were previously unanswerable by science were answered by religion. In the light of the ever-improving scientific models of reality, ancient religious doctrine is approaching the absurd. Where the constrained light of science does not shine, religion stands rooted in it’s usual method: mere guesswork.

As I am studying the Greek philosophers right now, there is one interesting question regarding Plato. I may just be rambling and be way off, but I thought it might be worthwhile writing it down nevertheless. To understand why, I will first explain what ideas Plato formulated:

Plato stated that there are basically two realities: one which we can sense with our 5 senses, and one which is objective and is independent to the reality which we can actually sense. This reality is also said to be timeless and cannot change. For sake of easy reference, this objective world will from now be called O, whereas the material reality that we can study will be called M. Plato’s main idea is that M is a shadow of O, because M constitutes of many attributes that makes it “weak” or “lesser” in terms of existence, such as being finite, as compared to O.

Now, I thought that O vs M is a good analogy to ask, what if we compare O to god? I don’t think this idea is very farfetched in theory, because there are actually many similarities between the Christian god and O, most notably that:

- M is a reflection of O
- O is supposed to not be able to change in nature and is timeless
- O exists independently of M

If switching the word O with god, this would happen:

- M is a reflection of god (which can be interpreted as M is god’s creation)
- God cannot change in nature and is timeless
- God exists independently of M

Now, there are however a few flaws in Plato’s theory, most notably the one about independence. Because if O exists independently of M, then how can we know for certain that M is merely a reflection of O? We simply cannot know what O is, because O is supposed to be seperate of M. We cannot study O at all.

This argument is strikingly similar to the argument that Christians keep repeating, except that they are contradicting themselves, because:

1) Christians claim that god exists in another realm of existence outside the material world and can thus not be interacted with or studied
2) Christians claim they have had personal experiences with god, such as being told something by god, or felt a divine presence

But 1) and 2) are almost mutually exclusive because:

3) Christians also claim that we cannot understand or know god

So if 1) is true, then 2) cannot be true, because how can they know it was god if they also at the same time claim 3)? So 2) is actually a contradiction to 1) and 3), because even if they claim to know that was indeed god, we simply cannot know.

While I am not trying to argue for some kind of extreme skepticism here, at least I think that using Plato’s theory as an analogy shows that Christians can never know for a certainty that god indeed exists, and if they claim they do they are contradicting themselves. We cannot logically prove whether god’s existence is true or false, particularly if using a similar argument like that of Plato’s, but I don’t think that is what is important, but rather which I have shown here. Due to logical uncertainty, I think any religious person should not be so quick rushing at saying “goddidit” or “it was god, I know it”, because according to this, how can they can truly know? It could’ve as well been Satan or any other divine being. It is exactly that kind of naïvety that they often claim anti-religious for doing, when the anti-religious do something they do not personally agree with, (“you follow Satan but you don’t know it”), but I think here I have evidence for that they themselves shouldn’t be so certain of god’s existence, or they are as hypocricial as they claim others to be.

I have discussed the nature of God and his desires for quite some time with Christians. I have always searched for examples to help convey my points. I have recently worked on a logical exercise that deals with concepts of infinity; however, I don’t believe that paper is as complete as it could be. As a direct result I think I have developed an example that really drives the point home about God’s notions of “justice” and “love”.

I should forewarn the reader that I am a mathematics major and as such, I have tried to apply a sort of governing formula for my discussion here. I have tried to outline it and provide examples that are fitting to the problem at hand.

Here is how I am going to approach the Bible for this particular exercise I wish to discuss. I look at the ultimate goal of the Bible to be an algorithm that essentially outlines God’s plan. It’s a sort of rulebook, if you will, that outlines what God’s program is going to do and what believers can expect. We see the “expected” outcomes in the forms of “prophecy”. I am also taking something for granted, the fact that Christians frequently say how God’s word is “truth” or “absolute truth”. This axiom, to me, means that God never breaks his word (i.e. he never lies)… according to the Bible at least. Thus I will assume that God’s algorithms for “governing” his creation are not going to be broken as well. Christians can say “God can do whatever he wants” in response to some of my points. However, that means that God would break his word as laid down by the Bible (i.e. he really lied to us).

I can now get into the purpose of the paper. The most major criteria governing who goes to Heaven and who goes to Hell can be summed up with the two following rules (as quoted by many Christians to me).

#1) Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, body and soul.
#2) Love your neighboor as yourself.

I wouldn’t say these are actually unique to the Christian faith, as I have heard similar statements made by the Jews. There is even an allegory I remember reading about an old Rabbi who was challenged once about Judaism’s message. Basically the story went that the challenger said he would convert to Judaism if the Rabbi could teach him all the knowledge of the Torah while standing on one leg. The Rabbi rose to the challenge and said “Love God, and love your neighbor as yourself.” As you can see, this little saying isn’t really anything new. Anyway, this is one of the major things Christians use to preach the Gospel and win people over to their way of thinking. I really want to focus in on these two sayings and apply it to some very extreme cases that are real world examples.

The first person I want to discuss and introduce is Mohandas (Mahatma) Gandhi. Gandhi is considered, historically, as one of the worlds most influential people for civil rights. For those needing the history refresher he was the leader of a non-violent civil disobedience movement against the British occupation of India. He essentially wanted to free his people from British rule through non-violent means. His story has been heralded the world over as one of the greatest in human history. He is synonymous with many symbols of peace and he has influenced many movements of civil rights around the globe. The world is, frankly, a better place for his existence. Not only did he help his own people, but he has influenced others to stand up against oppression and demand their freedom as well.

There is one huge flaw with Gandhi though. He followed Hinduism. Now this is a major problem. Being occupied by the British means he would have had exposure to Christian ideology and religious teachings. This means exposure to Jesus’ teachings. While Gandhi clearly followed criteria #2, to the level that he didn’t even want to harm his enemies, he did not follow criteria #1. That’s right, he did not think Jesus was God, nor were any of his motivations for peace influenced by Jesus. This means that Gandhi has been sent to Hell. Yes, I am fully aware that I did not see God physically send Gandhi to Hell, but if God did not, then God is a liar. Not only that, the #2 requirement doesn’t appear to be warranted for the #2 slot in the hierarchy of rules governing our world. Requirement #1 seems to be a far more defining factor. Thus Gandhi is in Hell due to a technicality. I wouldn’t say this really shows the just nature of God, but it could be argued that Gandhi knowingly rejected God and thus God didn’t want to force Gandhi into wanting his help, that invalidates free will. I understand this factor, but it doesn’t technically make it “just”, though it makes sense within the system. But surely this must be an isolated incident?

Let me introduce you to the second person I want to discuss, his name is Adolf Hitler. Hitler, by many, is believed to be embodiment of evil. Truly no redemption could ever be awaiting this man. Or could it?

Let me go on a quick tangent. I have heard Hitler’s name referenced as an Atheist as an example of how atheism is a real threat. I hate to break it to people out there, but Hitler was a Christian. Below you will find some quotes, the most important being from “Mein Kampf” which was written in his own words discussing Christianity.

“The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God’s will, and actually fulfill God’s will, and not let God’s word be desecrated. For God’s will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord’s creation, the divine will.” (Mein Kampf, pgs. 562-563)

“We are a people of different faiths, but we are one. Which faith conquers the other is not the question; rather, the question is whether Christianity stands or falls. … We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity … in fact our movement is Christian. We are filled with a desire for Catholics and Protestants to discover one another in the deep distress of our own people.” (Hitler, speech in Passau, 27 October 1928)

“Anyone who thinks he can arrive at a religious reformation by the detour of a political organization only shows that he has no glimmer of knowledge of the development of religious ideas or dogmas and their ecclesiastical consequences. Verily a man cannot serve two masters. And I consider the foundation or destruction of a religion far greater than the foundation or destruction of a state, let alone a party.” (Mein Kampf, pg 114)

On discussing unworthy priests:
“…but for one such unworthy priest there are a thousand and more honorable ones, shepherds most loyally devoted to their mission, who, in our present false and decadent period, stand out of the general morass like little islands.” (Mein Kampf, pg 115)

As you can see the man was Christian. If you really need further proof go pick up a copy of the book, go to the index, and look up “Catholic Church”. There you will find all the reading you need on the matter. Now at this point you can see I’ve outlined that Hitler followed criteria #1. At this point you are probably thinking I’m crazy because only criteria #2 remains and how could Hitler fit that criterion? Let me explain. Amidst all that genocide and ethnic cleansing was a man who was trying to save his people. His “neighbors” if you will. Not only that, he took it a step further, he was actually trying to save the entire world from the Jewish threat. It doesn’t matter if none of it was true, the fact is, Hitler was doing it from a caring place in his heart. Sure he was angry about it, but that’s why he stood up to save the people! If you read “Mein Kampf”, as I have, you will see this plainly. His ideas weren’t coming strictly from a place of hatred, but from a place of love for his people.

Now, as a Christian, he would repent his sins, as that is part of the process. You ask for forgiveness, no self respecting Christian would say this wasn’t important. Hitler being well educated and intelligent would do this. So, I have to assume that he would ask for forgiveness of his sins and thus God adhering to his rulebook would absolve Hitler of sins. What does this mean? It means Hitler is in Heaven.

Now I thought I was going to get myself caught in a technicality for God meting out his justice. It is generally accepted that Hitler committed suicide, and most Christians seem to regard this as a major sin. I suppose it’s because they tie it in with “thou shalt not kill” and there are numerous passages discussing the sanctity of life. So Anath went and did some research for me. We couldn’t really find any passages specifically stating that if you commit suicide you go to hell. In fact we found that Samson technically committed suicide and God basically helped. Saul also committed suicide. Judas committed suicide as well. Judas, to me, seems to be the most tragic of cases. Judas was rather “pre-destined” as it is alluded to in the text that he was meant to do what he did. So it seems rather unfair that he didn’t seem to technically have a choice in this. Though, if I remember correctly, he supposedly repented (someone can correct me if I am wrong about this). Either way, I couldn’t find any specific statements that said you go to Hell immediately if you commit suicide. Rather, I find this sort of thing mentioned in Dante’s “Inferno”. Maybe the notion came from there?

In conclusion, you can plainly see the justice system as designed by God. Apparently this is supposed to be perfect. But under God’s rule Gandhi is in Hell and Hitler is in Heaven. Maybe my moral compass is broken because I have strong atheistic leanings, but internally I have a problem with this system. If it allows this kind of a thing to happen I would say the system is broken.

Ultimately what does this come down to? It appears to me that criteria #2 is actually rather negligible. It’s more of a “good message” concept rather than actually necessary. To me, it seems this is somewhat overridden by the forgiveness clause that Christianity also follows. Maybe #2 is there so that you can justify good works in light of God, so you can say “I do good things because I love God” or “God wants me to do them”. But that doesn’t change the fact that you can be a serial killer, a mass murderer, etc and ask for forgiveness of your sins and get to Heaven. I know that’s a major perk for winning over people, especially with the “no one can ever be perfect” message. This is akin to me wearing a blue shirt then having someone walk up to me and informing me that I am, in fact, wearing a blue shirt. For some reason a lot of people need to be told its okay not to be perfect, rather than coming to terms with that on their own. Maybe God really does sort these people out better, but based on what I read in his “word”, I don’t get that impression.

I wrote this in Kriegsphilosophie in relation to my views about marriage:

Ultimately I don’t believe in love, I believe in intelligence. For me, it is not the love that makes me love a person so to speak, it’s the intelligence found inside. A majority of Westerners still focus on that love is required to love in a relationship. That I happened to love someone is more of a side-effect of what I found inside a person, rather than love itself.

I guess what I really want to say is that I am aiming a social critique against the notion of how we view love. A lot of people say, “it’s nice to love”, but is it really the love we should be living for? Love, just like marriage, is just a symbol given a meaning, but I think a human being can be meaningful without symbols.

And I thought I could challenge some Christians with their view about love as a symbol as well, if you really read what I said carefully.

Love has no meaning outside a cultural context. Humans give it an instrinsic meaning because we believe in its meaning. For an animal, love is equal to air, simply because an animal cannot understand the symbolic meaning humans attach to love in their respective cultures.

If we also look at how Christians actually behave to their countrymen, it also turns out that the person they are projecting their love to is rather secondary. It rather seems to be the communal notion of love that is important than actually loving people, where the persons to whom you are projecting the love to are more important then the love you are projecting. That means that love itself becomes redundant as a symbolic carrier, and it would furthermore mean that you are more genuinely interested to those you are talking to instead of “spreading love”, and telling people how much “you love”. Because it seems what you are really after are just people who too, share this view inside a community, so in reality, it at least feels like you don’t really care about the people at all as long you have an agreement about the “love” itself.

This also holds very true in regards of what I have previously experienced. Remember, this is a challenge, not necessarily a claim I made to attack anyone or anyone’s beliefs.