Why There Is No God: Simple Responses to 20 Common Arguments for the Existence of God



ToDad,whoshowedmethevalueoflearning.

ToMom,whoshowedmethevalueofcaring.

Contents
Introduction
Chapter1:“Sciencecan'texplainthecomplexityandorderoflife;Godmust
havedesignedittobethisway.”
Chapter2:“God'sexistenceisprovenbyscripture.”
Chapter3:“Someunexplainedeventsaremiraculous,andthesemiraclesprove
theexistenceofGod.”
Chapter4:“MoralitystemsfromGod,andwithoutGod,wecouldnotbegood
people.”
Chapter5:“BeliefinGodwouldnotbesowidespreadifGoddidn’texist.”
Chapter6:“Godanswersprayers;therefore,hemustbereal.”
Chapter7:“IfeelapersonalrelationshipwithGod,soIknowthatheisreal.”
Chapter8:“It'ssafertobelieveinGodthanbewrongandgotoHell.”
Chapter9:“Godisn’tdefined.Godcannotbecomprehendedordescribed.One
mustsimplyhavefaith.”
Chapter10:“There'snoevidencethatGoddoesn'texist.”
Chapter11:“IfthereisnoGod,wheredideverythingcomefrom?WithoutGod,
thereisnoexplanation.”
Chapter12:“Myreligion/Godhashelpedmesomuch.Howcoulditnotbe
real?”
Chapter13:“Godislove;Godisenergy.”
Chapter14:“ThelawsoflogicprovetheexistenceofGod.”
Chapter15:“BelievinginGodprovidesmeaningandpurpose;withoutit,life
wouldbemeaningless.”
Chapter16:“SomanypeoplediedforGod/religion.Surely,itmustbereal.”
Chapter17:“Atheismhaskilledmorepeoplethanreligion,soitmustbe
wrong!”

Chapter18:“You’llbecomeabelieverwhenyouaredesperateforGod’shelp.”

Chapter19:“SmartpeopleandrenownedscientistslikeX,YandZbelievein

God,soitmustbetrue.”

Chapter20:“Howcanwereallyknowanything?”

InPursuitofGod

Introduction

This book is meant to provide to-the-point and easy-to-understand

counterargumentstomanyof the popular arguments made fortheexistenceof

God. Each chapter presents a short and simple explanation of the argument,

followed by a response illustrating the problems and fallacies inherent in that

claim.The tools offered in this book should offer you a solid foundation for

buildingyourowninquiryabouttheconceptofGod.

WhoIsThisBookFor?

This book is written for atheists, believers and the undecided who find the

concept of God an important one to examine critically and worth discussing.

This book acts as a basic introduction to the debate about God, providing a

springboardfornewideastobeformedanddiscussed.

For the already-convinced atheist, this book can help you better articulate

your point of view in discussions, giving you guidance for how the reasoning

behind your disbelief in God can be discussed. As an atheist, you're bound to

encounter some or all of these arguments eventually when interacting with

believers; understanding these arguments and seeing how others have

approachedtheminlogicalwayscanhelpyouhandlethesamediscussions.

Asabeliever,youmayfindthatyoudisagreewithmuchofwhatissaidhere,

and that's okay. Reading this book will allow you to see what many atheists

believeandhowsomepeoplemayquestionthebeliefsthatyouhold.Ifyouplan

to defend your faith in discussions, this book can help you understand the

reasoning behind the lack of belief in your opponents. Knowing this will help

you debate from a more informed position, and the atheists you talk to may

appreciate the fact that you've taken time to understand and consider their

arguments.Knowingandappreciatingtheopponent'spointofviewcanhelpyou

startaproductivediscussionregardingGodandreligioninamoreconstructive

way.

ForpeoplewhoareyetundecidedonthesubjectofGod,theargumentsin

thisbookcanhelpprovideabaselinefordiscussionorfurtherresearchaboutthe

existence of God. By reviewing many of the common arguments for the

existenceofGodandrebuttalstothem,youwillhaveasolidfoundationtouse

asthebaseofyourownanalysis,researchandreflection.

UnderstandingtheBurdenofProof

Oneconceptyou'llseecomeuprepeatedlyinthisbookistheideaoftheburden

ofproof.Duringanydebate,it'sthejobofapersonmakingaclaimtoprovide

support,evidenceandreasoningforthatclaim.Itsimplydoesn'tmakesenseto

makeanunfoundedclaimwithnoevidencetobackitanddemandthattheother

persontoeitheragreewithyouordisproveyourunfoundedstatement.

Tobetterunderstandhowtheburdenofproofworks,consideranexampleby

Matt Dillahunty from The Atheist Experience TV show. Imagine that you're

givenajarfullofbeans.Youhavenoideahowmanybeansareinthejar,but

youknowthatitmustbeeitheranevenoranoddnumber.Withnosupporting

evidenceonewayortheother,however,youcouldnotsayforsurewhetherthe

jarcontainedanevenoroddnumberofbeans.Ifyouweretoclaimthatitwas

oneortheother,youwouldneedsomesupportingevidenceorlogicalreasoning.

Otherwise,yourclaimwouldsimplybearandomguess.

Theburdenofproofisanecessarypartofanydebate,regardlessofthetopic

beingdiscussed.Itsutilityinfacilitatingdiscussionissowellestablishedthatit's

required in legal proceedings as well; the prosecution must prove beyond a

reasonabledoubtthatthedefendantisguilty.

In the case of debates about God, the burden is on the believer to offer

supportforherpositionifshewishesittobeconsideredseriously.Inreality,the

only necessary argument against believing in God is simply that there is no

evidencethatanygodsexist.Anatheistdoesn'tneedtojustifyherlackofbelief

anyfurther.Thiskeepstheburdenofproofonthesideoftheclaimantwhereit

belongs.Thepersonmakingaclaimhastoprovidetheevidenceforitsvalidity.

Wouldyoubelieveintheclaimthatflyingpineapplesexistuntilprovenwrong

without any evidence? Probably not. You would withhold belief until there is

evidencetosupportsuchaclaim.

Allthesame,it'ssometimesvaluabletopointoutthefallaciesinaclaimant’s

argument.Attheveryleast,thiscreatesconstructivediscussionwhereallpoints

areconsideredandexamined. This can also introduce doubt,causingthe other

persontoreconsiderhisorherpositionorconsidersearchingforevidencebefore

acceptingaclaim.

CanWeSaywithCertaintyThatThereIsNoGod?

Atheismexistsonaspectrum.SomeatheistsclaimabsolutecertaintyinGod’s

nonexistence.Otherssimplyremainunconvincedandrefusetobelieveinadeity

without compelling evidence. However, once one has a high enough level of

certainty about something, they usually treat it as certain for the sake of

practicality.

After all, I cannot say with absolute certainty that my wife is not a

professionalassassinhiredbythePeople'sRepublicofChinatoexterminateme.

But I don't spend time worrying about the possibility because there is no

evidence whatsoever to support it. The same is true for the existence of God,

although my wife being an assassin is actually more likely; that scenario, at

least, would fall within the known scientific laws without contradicting the

prevailingmodelsexplainingtheuniverse.

IsThereAnyValueinDebate?

Manyofusgrewupinreligiousenvironmentsandbeganquestioningwhatwe

had been taught by family, friends or the community in general. Finding the

language to talk about those doubts is a challenge, though, and having the

supportofotherswhohavecoveredthatgroundisvaluable.

Even if you're not changing anyone's mind, examining different arguments

can help hone your own skepticism and critical thinking skills. Furthermore,

someofthepeopleyoumeetmaybedoubtfulorinsecureabouttheirreligionbut

donotknowhowtoexpressthosedoubts;introducingthemtothesearguments

andcounterargumentsmightempowerthemtolearnmoreandprovideabetter

understandingoftheirowndoubtsandquestions.

Whether you're using this reference as a way to validate your own views,

armyourselffordebatesorsimplyanalyzetheconceptsofGodandreligionona

critical and exploratory way, this guide will provide thorough responses to 20

common arguments for the existence of God. Each chapter will introduce the

claim before deconstructing it, providing sources for further study wherever

relevant.

WhatDoWeMeanbyGod?

Formostofthisbook,we’llconsideragodtobeaconscious,supernaturalbeing

thatisresponsibleforcreatingand/orsustainingtheentireworldorsomemajor

attributes of the world and the rules that govern it, including some examples

fromtheChristianandIslamicdefinitionsofGod.We’llalsoconsidertheismto

be the belief in this definition of a god or gods. In Chapter 13, we’ll consider

some other definitions for God, including deistic and pantheistic (but more on

thatlater).ForanobjectiveoverviewofmoreviewsandideologiesaboutGod,

visitWhatAreGods.com.

WhoAreWe?

This book was written by Armin Navabi, a former Muslim from Iran and the

founderofAtheistRepublic,anon-profitorganizationwithupwardsofamillion

fansandfollowersworldwidethatisdedicatedtoofferingasafecommunityfor

atheistsaroundtheworldtosharetheirideasandmeetlike-mindedindividuals.

Atheistsareaglobalminority,andit'snotalwayssafeorcomfortableforthemto

discusstheirviewsinpublic.

Attheveryleast,discussingone’satheisticviewscanbeuncomfortableand

ostracizing. In some countries, expressing such views can put someone in

physical danger. By offering a safe community for atheists to share their

opinions, Atheist Republic hopes to boost advocacy for those whose voices

mightotherwisebesilenced.

FurtherDiscussions

Ifyouhavesomethingtoaddtothediscussionlaidoutinthisbookorwantto

furtherdebatethetopic,youcanreachmeatWhyThereIsNoGod.com,whereI

offeronlinevideoandaudiodiscussionsonthetopicofGodandreligion.

Chapter1:“Sciencecan'texplainthecomplexityand

orderoflife;Godmusthavedesignedittobethis

way.”

Arguablytheearliestfunctionofreligionwastoexplainnaturalphenomenathat

primitivemancouldnototherwiseunderstand.Lightningstormsandvolcanoes,

for example, are natural forces that were once attributed to deities. Now that

scientificprogresshasmadeitclearhowandwhymanyofthesethingsoccur,a

Godisnolongerrequiredtoexplainthem.

The same is true for many other natural processes, and as the scientific

method manages to come up with more models with better explanatory and

predictive capabilities for such phenomenon, supernatural explanations prove

themselvesmoreinadequate,tosaytheleast.Eventhoughtherearethingsinthe

world that we don't yet understand and may never truly understand, there's no

reasontosimplymakeupanexplanation.Ineffect,beliefinGodisnotreallyan

answer;it'ssimplyawayofsaying,“Idon'tknow.”Yet,theexistenceofdeities

raisesmorequestionsthanitsolves.

In 1802, philosopher William Paley introduced “The Teleological

Argument” in his book Natural Theology(1). In it, he argues that the universe

musthavebeen designedbyanintelligentcreator becauseitistoocomplexto

have arisen by chance. To illustrate this, he makes an analogy to a watch: if

you'rewalkingonthebeachandfindawatch,youknowfromitscomplexitythat

awatchmakermusthavecreatedit.Itwouldbeabsurdto think that the watch

couldhavesprungupspontaneously.Byhislogic,complexityimpliesdesign.

Sincethen,manyscientistsandphilosophershavetackledthisissueandhave

shownthatcomplexsystemscanarisewithoutadesigner.Evolutionbynatural

selection is one such system. We’ll examine the issue of complexity without

design here from a more general perspective, but you can visit

EvolutionSimplyExplained.com for a short and simple video explaining how

evolutionworks.

The mathematician John Conway created a model, the Game of Life. The

gameshowshowcomplexitycanarisefromafewsimplecellsfollowingbasic

mathematical rules (2). In the game, a player establishes an initial pattern of

“cells,”thensetsthemloosetomultiplyanddieaccordingtobasicmathematical

calculations.

Forpopulatedspaces:

•Ifacellhasoneorfewerneighbors,itwilldie.

•Ifacellhasfourormoreneighbors,itwilldie.

•Cellswithtwoorthreeneighborswillsurvive.

Foremptyspaces:

•Cellswiththreeneighborsbecomepopulated.

Depending on the initial circumstances, the results of each game can vary

substantially. Some create incredibly complex, symmetrical designs that

constantlygrow.Othersmovetowardapointofstagnationbeforegrowthstalls

entirely. In every case, the resulting design occurs entirely from the

mathematical laws governing the behavior of cells, not from any conscious

behaviorofthepersonplaying.Thegameillustratesthenthatanysystemwithits

own rules can operate itself and move toward increasingly complex results

without outside interference. To watch a couple short videos of some of these

complex objects emerging from simple laws, spreading and interacting in

surprisinglybeautifuldesigns,goto:FromBasicLaws.com

ComplexityIsNottheMarkerofDesign

Thewatchanalogyworkspreciselyandonlybecauseweknowthatwatchesare

not natural and do not arise on their own in nature. If design were truly

responsibleforeverything,therewouldbenofundamentaldifferencebetweena

stone and a watch because both would have been designed by an intelligent

creator.Thus,wewould not be able torecognizedesignfrom non-design, and

the terms would be obsolete. Design exists purely in contrast to naturally-

occurringphenomena.

IfComplexityRequiresaCreator,WhoCreatedGod?

This is perhaps the greatest problem with the idea of complexity by design.

Invoking a deity doesn't solve the problem of complexity; it introduces a new

problem.Ifallcomplexthingsreallydorequireanintelligentcreator,thenwhy

isthatcreatorhimselfnotboundtothesamerule?Wouldthatcomplexdeitynot

requireanevenmorecomplexcreator,andsoon,forinfinity?

The complexity of the universe is something that scientists continue to

explore,andwemayneverhavealltheanswers.Butthere'snothingwrongwith

that.Notknowingtheanswertoaquestionisnotavalidexcuseformakingupa

fairytaletoexplainit.

Sources:

1).Paley, William, and Matthew Eddy. Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the

ExistenceandAttributesoftheDeity,CollectedfromtheAppearancesofNature.

Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2006.

2) Gardner, Martin. “Mathematical Games – The Fantastic Combinations of

JohnConway'sNewSolitaireGame‘Life.’”Scientific American223,October,

1970,120-23.

Chapter2:“God'sexistenceisprovenbyscripture.”

Manyreligionshavecertainholybooksthatarereveredastrueaccounts.These

arecalledscripture,textconsideredsacredandeitherinspiredordirectlydictated

by a deity. Many of the adherents to these religions claim that their scriptures

prove the existence of their deity. The Bible and Quran are held up by many

believers as both guides for belief and historical accounts of reality. Many

believers claim that their holy book of choice is uniquely perfect, thus

suggestingitsdivineorigin.

This argument presupposes its premise: the people who hold up their holy

scriptureasevidencearethesamepeoplewhoalreadybelieveitscontentstobe

true. In doing so, it falls into the fallacy of begging the question (a form of

circular reasoning), where an argument’s question presupposes its answer (1).

Thisisnodifferentthansaying,“ThisistruebecauseIbelieveit,”whichhardly

countsasevidence.

DocumentsAreNotSelf-authenticating

Justbecausesomethingiswritteninabookdoesnotmeanthatit'strue.Thisis

obvious.Therearemillionsoffictionalstoriesthroughouthistoryandplentyof

other books that claim to be factual but have been proven to be false. The

existenceofscripturedoesnotautomaticallyproveanythingabouttheveracity

ofwhatthosescripturescontain.

Additionally, the scriptures themselves are rife with contradictions.

Ultimately, they are books that were written by fallible humans, and though

there may be some grains of historical truth within them, there is also ample

hyperbole,speculationandmythology.

ScriptureIsOftenInconsistentandInaccurate

Everyholybookisfullofinternalerrors,inconsistenciesanddifferingaccounts.

Thismakessensewhenyouconsiderthatthesebookswerepiecedtogetherby

multipleauthorsoveraspanofcenturies.Ifscripturewasadocumentdescribing

historical reality, the basic facts should be consistent from one account to the

next.

Some biblical errors are inconsistent with the observable laws of the

universe.Forexample,Genesis1:1-19statesthatGodcreatedtheheavensand

theearthonthefirstdayofcreation;thestars,sun,moonandotherplanetswere

allcreatedonthefourthday,afulldayafterthecreationofseed-bearingplants.

Thisordermakesnosense,asplantsrequiresunlighttogrow,evenifyouignore

the scientific fact that the sun and stars existed long before the earth and

floweringplants.

In the Quran, several scientific errors are also apparent. For example, the

Quransuggeststhattheearthisflatwiththesunrisingandsettinginparticular

parts of the earth (18:86). Such errors make sense when considering the

scientificknowledgeatthetimetheQuranwaswritten,buttheywouldnotmake

senseiftheQuranhadbeenwrittenbyan all-knowingdeity,asisbelievedby

Muslims,whoholdtruethebeliefthattheQuranisthedirectandexactwordof

GodtoldtoMohammed.

Other scriptural problems are internal contradictions. For example, the

resurrectionstory—arguablythesinglemostimportanteventintheBiblefrom

aChristianperspective—istoldinanumberofdifferentways.Herearejusta

fewoftheinconsistenciesbetweenthoseversions:

•InMatthew,JesuswasburiedbyJosephofArimathea(Matthew27:57-60).

InActs,hewasburiedbyadifferentgroupofpeople(Acts13:27-29).

•Matthew(28:2-5)andMark(16:5)reportthatthewomenatChrist'stomb

sawonepersonorangel.Luke(24:4)andJohn(20:12)saythereweretwo.

• Mark states that Jesus died the day after Passover meal (Mark 14 - 15).

JohnplacestheeventonthedaybeforethePassovermeal(John18-19).

Whenthescripturecan'tevencometoaconsensusaboutasimplefactlike

the date of Jesus's crucifixion, it's difficult to accept the accounts as being

historicallyaccurate,muchlessdivinelyinspired.

Muslimsarequicktopointout the supposed perfectionoftheirholybook,

the Quran. According to many Muslims, the Quran contains foreknowledge of

science that predicts modern inventions and discoveries. These claims are

dubiousadhocarguments:Modern-daybelieversattributetheseexplanationsto

thetextafterthefact.If the Quran actually containedscientificbreakthroughs,

many of the countless believers who had studied the Quran would have made

thesediscoveriesbeforethescientists.Thatnoneofthesescientificpredictions

wererevealedbyinterpretationsoftheQuranuntilafterthey'dcometolightby

scientistsmakessuchclaimshighlydubious.

ReligiousTextsareMan-MadeandFallible

There's a simple explanation for the errors in the Quran and Bible: these

documentswerewrittenbyhumans,and in many cases,werestitchedtogether

from oral traditions and transcribed decades or even centuries after the events

described.Bearinmind,also,thatthebooksoftheBiblearelargelyanonymous.

NameslikeMatthew,Mark,LukeandJohnwereaddedafterthefactbyeditors

andscribes.Theactualidentityoftheseauthorsisunknown(2).

BiblicalscholarsestimatethattheoldestbooksoftheNewTestament,Paul's

letters, were written around 20 years after the date of Christ's supposed

resurrection.Paulwasnotpresentforanyoftheeventsdescribedinthegospels,

andhedidnotknowJesuspersonally.Thegospelsthemselveswerewritteneven

later,between30and70yearsaftertheallegeddeathofJesus(2).

Jesus's contemporaries were Aramaic-speaking, illiterate commoners. They

could neither read nor write, so stories were passed around orally. Like all

gossip,theseoralhistoriesareboundtohavetransformedovertimebygaining

embellishments,mixingup details and forgettingimportant facts. Just likeany

otherlegend,fromtheinvasionofTroytothetalesofPaulBunyan,thesestories

likelycontainmuchmorepoeticlicensethanactualhistory.

Sources:

1) Bennett, Bo. “Begging the Question.” Logically Fallacious: The Ultimate

Collectionofover300LogicalFallacies.EBookIt.com,2012.

2)Ehrman,BartD.Jesus,Interrupted:RevealingtheHiddenContradictionsin

theBible(AndWhyWeDon'tKnowAboutThem).NewYork:HarperOne,2009.

Chapter3:“Someunexplainedeventsaremiraculous,

andthesemiraclesprovetheexistenceofGod.”

Before discussing miracles in detail, it helps to have a firm definition of what

exactly “miracle” actually means. The Collins English Dictionary defines it as

“an event that is contrary to the established laws of nature and attributed to a

supernatural cause.” In order for something to qualify as a miracle, it must be

morethanstatisticallyunlikely;itmustbephysicallyimpossiblewithout some

sortofsupernaturalintervention.

This definition separates “true miracles” from events that are simply

statisticallyunlikely.Theselattereventsarenoteworthybecauseoftheirrarity,

but they exist within natural laws. For example, a person surviving a disease

believedtobeterminalonlyshowsthatthediseasemaynotbefullyunderstood

orthattheprognosiswasnotaccurate.Ourunderstandingofthenatural world

can be modified by new knowledge without needing to throw out our

understandingofthelawsoftheuniverseentirely.

AnUnknownCauseIsNottheSameasDivineIntervention

Asacasestudyofperceivedmiracles,let’sexaminethebeliefinthundergods

withincertaincultures.Throughouthistory,therehavebeenmanythundergods,

spreadoutacrossmultiplecontinentsandcivilizations(1).Inmostcases,thegod

created thunderstorms directly through his actions, whether this meant Zeus

throwinglightningboltsorthebeatingofathunderbird'swings.Today,whenthe

scientific causes of thunder are well-known, such myths seem absurd and

antiquated. At the time, though, believers likely felt that thunder was a

miraculouseventrequiringsuchdivineexplanation.

Thisphenomenonofascribingsupernaturalcausestomysteriouseventsisa

caseof“argumentfromignorance”(2).Thisisafallacywhereapersonclaims

thatastatementistruesimplybecausethereisnoevidencetothecontrary,even

whenthereisalsoatotallackofsupportingevidence.Theargumenttakesthe

form“ThereisnoargumentagainstP,thereforeP.”Inotherwords,“Thereisno

explanationforthisevent,soGoddidit.”

Imaginethisanalogy:let’s say thatIclaimthatthesunrunson trillions of

AAbatteries.Youclaimthatthisisridiculous.Inresponse,Iaskyoutoexplain

where the sun gets its energy from. Perhaps you don’t know the answer or

assumethatnooneyetknowsthesourceofsun’senergy.Woulditbereasonable

toconsiderthislackofunderstandingtobeproofofmyclaim?

Anotherproblemwithascribingsupernaturalcausestomysteriouseventsis

that they are unfalsifiable, meaning that they can’t be disproved. Unfalsifiable

claimsholdnomeritwithoutevidence.Forexample,thereisnowaytodisprove

thatthereisnotaheat-resistantpopulationofgiantrhinoslivingclosetoEarth’s

core. Yet, the inability to disprove such a claim does not make it likely to be

true.Ifaclaimisunfalsifiable,theburdenofprooffortheclaimliesonwhoever

ismakingtheclaim.

For any given event without an explanation, an unlimited number of

unfalsifiableexplanationscouldbeoffered,butnoneofthemwouldnecessarily

betrue.OnepersonmightascribeamiracletoGodwhilesomeoneelseclaims

thatspacealiensareresponsible.Withoutevidencetobackuptheirclaims,these

explanationsareequallymeaningless.

Timeandagain, eventsthatmayinitiallyseemmiraculouslaterturn outto

have a reasonable explanation. For example, near-death experiences are often

heldupasproofoftheafterlife.Duringsuchanexperience,apersonmayfeelas

thoughsheisoutsideofherbody,lookingdownonit,orshemayexperiencethe

feelingof traveling down adark tunnel toward asource of light.Some people

reporthearingthevoicesofdepartedlovedones,withthesedisembodiedvoices

sometimesurgingthembackawayfrom the light, whichsomebelievemaybe

theafterlife.

These accounts can be compelling and, for the person experiencing them,

veryreal.However,scientificevidencesuggestsabiologicalmechanismbehind

theseresponses,andtheresultscanbetriggeredmanuallybydoctorsstimulating

partsofaperson'sbrain(3).

Justbecauseanevent'scauseisnotimmediatelyapparentorunderstandable

doesnotmeanthatitmusthaveasupernaturalorigin.Itmightsimplymeanthat

moreresearchshouldbecompletedtounderstanditoreventhatwemaynever

fullyunderstandit.

ManyEventsAreInherentlyMeaningless

The human brain is hardwired to recognize patterns, even in random,

meaningless noise. Michael Shermer calls it patternicity in his 2008 Scientific

American article, “Patternicity: Finding Meaningful Patterns in Meaningless

Noise”(4).AccordingtoShermer,thistendencytowardidentifyingpatternsand

assigningcausalrelationshipiscrucialregardingourabilitytosurviveinnature,

and it’s something we’ve evolved to do very well. As Shermer explains in a

2010TedTalk,“[Imagine]youareahominidthreemillionyearsagowalkingon

theplainsofAfrica,andyouheararustleinthegrass.Isitadangerouspredator,

or is it just the wind? Your next decision could be the most important one of

yourlife.Well,ifyouthinkthattherustleinthegrassisadangerouspredator

and it turns out it's just the wind, you've made an error in cognition…but no

harm.Youjustmoveaway.Ontheotherhand,ifyoubelievethattherustlein

thegrassisjustthewind,anditturnsoutit'sadangerouspredator,you'relunch.

You'vejustwonaDarwinaward.You'vebeentakenoutofthegenepool.”This

examplehelpsdemonstratehownatural selection can favor assigning causality

betweenevents(5).Ina2008paperintheProceedingsoftheRoyalSocietyB,

“The Evolution of Superstitious and Superstition-like Behaviour,” Kevin R

FosterandHannaKokkoconcludethat“theinabilityofindividuals—humanor

otherwise—toassigncausalprobabilitiestoallsetsofeventsthatoccuraround

them will often force them to lump causal associations with non-causal ones.

Fromhere,theevolutionaryrationale for superstitionisclear:naturalselection

will favour strategies that make many incorrect causal associations in order to

establishthosethatareessentialforsurvivalandreproduction”(6)

Thistypeoflearningbyassociationisprevalentinalltypesofanimals.In

the case of humans, our ability to spot patterns is quite sophisticated.

Unfortunately, the brain can also be easily tricked into seeing patterns where

none exist (e.g., shapes in the clouds, faces in wood grain or voices in white

noise).

We're also quick to attribute meaning to things we experience, even if the

event itself is inherently meaningless. As emotional human beings who form

strongpersonaltiestooneanotherandmaycaredeeplyforothers,weclingto

falselyperceivedpatternspossiblyasawaytomakesenseofbothtragedyand

successandto,insomeway,feellikewehavesomekindofreliablesolutionin

situationswherewesensealackofcontrol(7).

Allofthisexplainswhymanypeoplearesopronetobelieveinmiracles.It

does not make those miraculous experiences true. Without hard evidence to

proveboththeexistenceandcauseofmiracles,sucheventssaylittleaboutthe

existenceofGod.

ImprobableEventsAreNotProofoftheSupernatural

Many people turn to the supernatural when they witness a highly improbable

event and consider it to be a miracle rather than looking for a natural

explanation.Yetanunderstandingofbasicpropertiesofprobabilitylawsshows

thatevenextremelyimprobableeventshappenallthetime(8).Therearemany

examplesthatshowthateventswithverysmallprobabilityarenotmiraculous.

In fact, they're commonplace. Mathematician J.E. Littlewood suggested that

eachoneofusshouldexpectone-in-a-millioneventstohappentousaboutonce

everymonth.Failingtorecognizethisisduetousignoringtheastronomically

highnumberofeventsthatoccurwhichwefindinsignificant.Eventsthatwedo

findsignificant,suchaswinningalotteryordreamingaboutyourmothercalling

you right before waking up to her call are just a tiny fraction of many other

insignificanteventswiththesameorevenlowerprobabilityofoccurring,such

asthechancethatyouhadadreamofyourmothercallingyouandalsorunning

out of milk five days after at 7:21 am. As statisticianDavid J. Hand explains,

“Livesarefullofevents,minorandmajor.Withsomanyeventstochoosefrom,

it's only to be expected that some surprises will occur, even though they are

incrediblyunlikelywhentakenbythemselves.”

Afterwitnessingeventswithverysmallprobabilities,wemightthinkthatthe

lawsofnaturehavebeenbrokenandattempttousesupernaturalexplanationsto

makesenseofobservingsuchevents.Butnomatterhowunlikelyaneventis,it

doesn’t mean that a supernatural explanation would be more likely, especially

whenyouconsiderthefactthatinorderforustoacceptsuchanexplanation,we

have to agree that scientific models of nature that have consistently and

accurately explained and predicted many natural events are completely wrong

simplybecausewehavewitnessedanunlikelyevent.Yetcloseanalysisofsuch

“miracles” have never led to any proof for a supernatural explanation, and, in

fact, many have proven to be cheap magic tricks, hallucinations or primitive

misunderstandingsofnaturalphenomena(9).

Sources:

1)Jordan,Michael.DictionaryofGodsandGoddesses.Seconded.NewYork:

FactsonFile,2004.

2)Bennett,Bo.“ArgumentfromIgnorance.”LogicallyFallacious:TheUltimate

CollectionofOver300LogicalFallacies.EBookIt.com,2012.

3)Blanke,Olaf,andSebastianDieguez.“Leavingbodyandlifebehind:Out-of-

body and near-death experience.” The neurology of consciousness: Cognitive

neuroscienceandneuropathology(2009):303-325.

4)Shermer,Michael.“Patternicity:FindingMeaningfulPatternsinMeaningless

Noise.”ScientificAmerican.November17,2008.AccessedSeptember1,2014.

5) Shermer, Michael. “The Pattern behind Self-deception.” TED. February 1,

2010.AccessedSeptember4,2014.

6) Foster, Kevin R., and Hanna Kokko. “The evolution of superstitious and

superstition-like behaviour.” Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological

Sciences276,no.1654(2009):31-37.

7) Shermer, Michael. The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics

and Conspiracies---How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths.

St.Martin'sGriffin,2012.

8) Hand, D. J. The Improbability Principle: Why Coincidences, Miracles, and

RareEventsHappenEveryDay.ScientificAmerican,2014.

9)Nickell,Joe.LookingforaMiracle:WeepingIcons,Relics,Stigmata,Visions

&HealingCures.Buffalo,N.Y.:PrometheusBooks,1999.

Chapter4:“MoralitystemsfromGod,andwithout

God,wecouldnotbegoodpeople.”

Religion is frequently held up as a model of correct or moral behavior. Many

holybookscontainrulesforhowpeoplemustliveinordertoreachHeavenor

some similar blessed afterlife, and failure to follow those rules often means

eternal banishment and punishment. A person who follows these rules and is

“godly” is also presumed to be a moral, upright person, whereas atheists are

frequently viewed with suspicion. After all, with no god to tell you how to

behave, what's to stop a person from doing whatever she wants? One poll

conducted by Canadian psychologists even placed atheists as more

untrustworthythanrapistsintheUnitedStatesandCanada,showingthatatheists

areamongtheleasttrustedpeopleeveninNorthAmerica(1).

In reality, there's no evidence that atheists as a group are any more

untrustworthyorimmoralthananyothergroup.Therearedishonestatheistsjust

as there are dishonest Christians and Muslims, and there are atheists who are

paragonsofgoodbehaviorjustlikeanyupstandingreligiousperson.

Indeed, religions do seem to incite violence (2) (3). This does not always

implyadirectcausalrelationshipbetweenreligionandviolence,yet,thisisthe

oppositeofwhatyou'dexpectifmoralityreallydidstemfromGod.

MoralsChangeandFallOutofFashion

Religious texts are generally ancient, and they reflect the values of the times

whentheywerewritten.Overtime,ourviewsofwhatisacceptableshiftasour

culturesprogress,whichmakesmanythingsfoundintheBibleorQuranseem

outdatedandhighlyproblematic.

Consider,forexample,theissueofslavery.Althoughtherearesomepeople

whostillbelievethatslaveryismoral,thevastmajorityofmodernChristiansare

unlikelytoadmitsupportfortheownershipofanotherperson.Nevertheless,the

Bible has many references to slavery, carefully detailing the rules for proper

slaveownership.

Forexample,intheOldTestament,Leviticus25:44-46explainsthatyoucan

take slaves from neighboring nations but not enslave your own people: “Your

maleandfemaleslavesaretocomefromthenationsaroundyou;fromthemyou

maybuyslaves.”Exodus21:20-21helpfullyclarifiesthataslave-ownerwillbe

punishedifhestrikesaslavebutonlyiftheslavedieswithinafewdaysofthe

punishment:“theyarenottobepunishediftheslaverecoversafteradayortwo,

sincetheslaveistheirproperty.”

Slaveryisn'ttheonlyquestionablepracticecondonedintheBible.Thedeath

penalty was also wielded quite liberally in biblical times, and death was a

popularpunishmentforsinsintheOldTestament,includingviolationssuchas

adultery (Leviticus 20:10), homosexuality (Leviticus 20:13), lying about

virginity (Deuteronomy 22:13-21), breaking the Sabbath (Exodus 31:14-15),

cursingyourparents(Exodus21:17)andmore.

InIslamicteaching,it’smadequiteclearthatanyonewhoturnsawayfrom

the Islam should be put to death. Within some of the most trusted and

authoritative Hadith collections in Islam, which is the main source of Islamic

lawsandethics,ProphetMuhammadis quoted as callingforthedeathpenalty

againstapostates:

TheProphetsaid,“ThebloodofaMuslimwhoconfessesthatnonehas

therighttobeworshippedbutAllahandthatIamHisApostle,cannotbe

shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who

commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam

(apostate)andleavestheMuslims.”(Sahihal-Bukhari,Vol.9,Book83,

Hadith17)

TheQuranalsoadvocatesbeatingwiveswhentheymisbehave:

“Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one

overtheotherandwhattheyspend[formaintenance]fromtheirwealth.

Sorighteouswomen are devoutly obedient, guardingin[the husband's]

absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from

whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist],

forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you

[oncemore],seeknomeansagainstthem.Indeed,AllahiseverExalted

andGrand.”(Quran4:34)

Ofcourse, many religious peopleare quick to jumpto the defense of their

givenholybookbyinsistingthatpassageslikethosementionedabovearetaken

outofcontext.The claimisthatcriticsof religionignoretheversesthatcome

beforeandafterandbydoingso,theversesseemtomeansomethingthatthey

arenotintendedtomean.Yetmanycriticshaveactuallytakenthetimetostudy

theseverseswithintheircontextandwithagreatdealofdetailedanalysis.Itis

recommended that you do not use any of these verses in an argument before

studying the context in which they were mentioned in. Curiously, many

believersdonotdemandmorecontextwhenmentioningversesdescribinglove,

charityoranyotherpositiveaspectoftheirscripture;versesareonlyviewedas

beingoutofcontextwhenthecontentisunflatteringforbelievers.Thissortof

cherrypickingisaconvenientviewpointtoholdbutcertainlynotadefensible

one.

While the punishments and habits described above may have fit into the

accepted morals of the authors’ time and cultures, that doesn’t make those

cultural practices acceptable today. Today, a man who kills his wife for lying

abouthervirginitywouldbepersecutedasamurderer,notlaudedforhismoral

behavior. If morality truly stemmed from an all-powerful deity, it would not

changeovertime.

TheEuthyphroDilemma

ArethingsmoralsimplybecauseGodsaysso?OrdoesGodgivecertainorders

because they are inherently moral? This is the question at the core of Plato's

Euthyphrodilemma, a problem that lies at the heart of religious debates about

thedivinityof moral authority (4). Ifmorality exists separate from God'swill,

there is no reason to rely on God for moral behavior; one could have moral

standards independently without divine feedback. On the other hand, if God

creates morality simply by saying whether something is right or wrong, then

that’s not really morality; it’s arbitrariness. Morality would become nothing

morethanthewhimsyofadivinebeingblindlyfollowedbyhumans.

GodisEitherImpotent,EvilorNon-existent

Most religions claim an all-powerful, all-loving benevolent deity. However,

physical reality often contradicts this claim. Terrible things happen to people

every day. Children die tragically young, natural disasters wipe out whole

communitiesandpeoplediefromaccidentsanddisease.Thesedonotsuggesta

righteous and compassionate god. These suggest that God is either powerless,

cruelornon-existent.

Worse still is the concept of hell, where non-believers suffer in eternal

torment simply for disbelieving in God. Indeed, this torture is supposedly

grantedeventotheistswhobelieveinthewronggods.IftheChristianreligionis

the“right”one,everyMuslim,Hindu,BuddhistandJewwouldburninhellfor

eternity (John 3:18-36, 2 Thessalonians 1:6-10 and Revelation 21:8), and this

rule is the same for other religions that believe in the concept of hell, such as

Islam:

And whoever desires other than Islam as religion - never will it be

accepted from him, and he, in the Hereafter, will be among the losers.

(Quran3:85)

Lo!ThosewhodisbelieveOurrevelations,Weshallexposethemtothe

Fire.Asoftenastheirskinsare consumed We shall exchangethemfor

freshskinsthattheymaytastethetorment.(Quran4:56)

Theysurelydisbelievewhosay:Lo!AllahistheMessiah,sonofMary…

for him Allah hath forbidden paradise. His abode is the Fire... They

surelydisbelievewhosay:Lo!Allahisthethirdofthree;whenthereis

noAllahsavetheOneAllah.Iftheydesistnotfromsosayingapainful

doomwillfallonthoseofthemwhodisbelieve.(Quran5:72-73)

For them is drink of boiling water and a painful doom, because they

disbelieved.(Quran6:70)

And the dwellers of the Fire cry out unto the dwellers of the Garden:

Pour on us some water or some wherewith Allah hath provided you.

They say: Lo! Allah hath forbidden both to disbelievers (in His

guidance).(Quran7:50)

Ifthoucouldstseehowtheangelsreceivethosewhodisbelieve,smiting

faces and their backs and (saying): Taste the punishment of burning!

(Quran8:50)

WeshallassemblethemontheDayofResurrectionontheirfaces,blind,

dumb and deaf; their habitation will be hell; whenever it abateth, We

increasetheflameforthem.Thatistheirrewardbecausetheydisbelieved

Ourrevelations.(Quran17:97-98)

Lo! We have prepared for disbelievers Fire. Its tent encloseth them. If

they ask for showers, they will be showered with water like to molten

lead which burneth the faces. Calamitous the drink and ill the resting-

place!(Quran18:29)

Butasforthosewhodisbelieve,garmentsoffirewillbecutoutforthem;

boilingfluidwillbepoureddownontheirheads,Wherebythatwhichis

in their bellies, and their skins too, will be melted; And for them are

hooked rods of iron. Whenever, in their anguish, they would go forth

fromthencetheyaredrivenbackthereinand(itissaiduntothem):Taste

thedoomofburning.(Quran22:19-22)

AndthoseintheFiresayuntotheguardsofhell:EntreatyourLordthat

He relieve us of a day of the torment. They say: Came not your

messengersuntoyouwithclearproofs?Theysay:Yea,verily.Theysay:

Thendo ye pray, althoughthe prayer of disbelieversis in vain. (Quran

40:49-50)

An all-loving god would surely not damn his children to an eternity of

torture simply for being born into a culture that believes in the wrong deity,

followsthewrongholybookorattendsthewrongtypeofchurchservices.

InadebateaboutmoralityandtheChristianreligion,SamHarrispointsout

the double standard in the idea of an all-benevolent god (5). When something

goodhappenstoabeliever,believersoftenattributethattoGod.Whenadisaster

occurs, believers often explain that God's will is mysterious and cannot be

comprehended by mortals. These two claims are in opposition; if God's will

cannotbecomprehended,howdoweknowthathehasgoodintentionsatall?It

certainly does not lay a solid foundation for the claim of God as the ultimate

sourceofmorality.

ANaturalExplanationforMorality

As science explores the nuances of human relationships, it becomes clear that

morality can exist outside of religion. In fact, it's not even limited to humans.

Altruistic behaviors have been observed in animals, particularly those with

complexsocialstructures(6).

Ourbrainshaveevolvedwithbehavioralstrategiesthathelpthesurvivalof

ourgenes.Thisisresponsibleforselfishdesiresthathavehelpedthesurvivalof

our species, but it has also lead to altruistic desires, such as sympathy or the

desireforfairness.Suchnaturaldesireshaveimprovedthesurvivalofourgenes

byincreasingcooperationamongindividuals(7).

Social animals, including humans, behave in certain ways toward others

becausetheirbrainshaveevolvedtohelptoensurenotonlytheirownsurvival,

butalsothesurvivaloftheirgenetickin.Tomakeusbehaveinsuchaway,our

brains create feelings, such as sympathy and desire for fairness, that are

hardwiredinourbrains(7).AsSamirOkashaoftheDepartmentofPhilosophy

at the University of Bristol explains: “Contrary to what is often thought, an

evolutionaryapproachtohumanbehaviordoesnotimplythathumansarelikely

tobemotivatedbyself-interestalone.Onestrategybywhich‘selfishgenes’may

increasetheirfuturerepresentationisbycausinghumanstobenon-selfish,inthe

psychologicalsense”(6).

Ourgenesarenotconscious.Theydidnothavetheforesighttooptimizeour

desires for maximizing human flourishing in modern societies; hence, fully

relyingonouraltruisticdesiresisnotideal.Buthumansarecapableofconscious

foresightandthusareabletodesignamorecomprehensivesetofstandards.

Ultimately, moral standards, as we understand them, are social constructs.

They are tied intimately to cultural circumstances and can change over time.

Nevertheless, the source of these standards is rooted in sentiments such as

sympathy towards our fellow conscious beings and a desire for living in a

peaceful and cooperative society. Social constructs that are based upon such

desires are, at their best, designed for maximizing human flourishing while

utilizingourevolutionarydesirestoencouragethem.Giventhatthesedesiresare

intimatelytiedtoourbrainstates,maximizingthelevelofhappinessforthemost

numberofpeoplecanbebestachievedbyascientificunderstandingofhowour

brainsfunctionandunderstandingwhatsetofstandardscanbestencouragemore

humaninteractionsthatleadtoafunctionalsociety(8).

Sources:

1)Gervais,WillM.,AzimF.Shariff,andAraNorenzayan.“DoYouBelievein

Atheists?DistrustIsCentraltoAnti-AtheistPrejudice.”Journal of Personality

andSocialPsychology101,no.6(2011):1189-206.

2) Ellens, J. Harold. The Destructive Power of Religion: Violence in Judaism,

Christianity,andIslam.Westport,Conn.:Praeger,2003.

3)Hall,JohnR.“ReligionandViolencefromaSociologicalPerspective.”The

Oxford Handbook of Religion and Violence, 363-374. Oxford: Oxford

UniversityPress,2013.

4) Jowett, Benjamin. “Euthyphro by Plato.” The Internet Classics Archive.

AccessedSeptember4,2014.

5) Harris, Sam. “Is the Foundation of Morality Natural or Supernatural? The

Craig-HarrisDebate.”ReasonableFaith.org.April7,2011.AccessedSeptember

4,2014.

6) Okasha, Samir. “Biological Altruism.” Stanford University. June 3, 2003.

AccessedSeptember5,2014.

7) Dawkins, Richard. The Selfish Gene. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University

Press,1990.

8) Harris, Sam. The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human

Values.NewYork:FreePress,2010.

Chapter5:“BeliefinGodwouldnotbesowidespread

ifGoddidn’texist.”

Religion has undoubtedly played a major role in the history of the world.

Religious people make up the majority of the world's population, and the

cultures of the world have been heavily shaped by religion throughout the

centuries(1).It'seasytoassumethatbeliefsthataresowidespreadmusthaveat

leastsomekerneloftruth.Afterall,howcouldsomanypeoplebelieveinGodif

itweren'ttrue?

In reality, there are many problems with this line of reasoning. First, it

ignoresthehistoricalandculturalcontextinwhichreligionformedandchanged

throughout the centuries. The world's cultures did not independently arrive at

religiousbeliefsandstickwiththosebeliefs,unchanged.Instead,religionswere

frequently formed through complicated circumstances, including invasions and

militaristic takeovers, and ideas were stolen, borrowed, and modified by

conqueringnations(2).

Ultimately, the idea that a large group of people believing in something

automaticallymakesittrueis a logical fallacycalledargumentumadpopulum

(3).Widespreadbeliefinsomethingdoesnotmakeitreal,andthingscanexistin

realityregardlessofwhetheryoubelieveinthem.Simplystated,thetruthistrue

even if no one believes it, and untrue claims are still untrue even if everyone

believesthem.

BeliefsDoNotInfluencePhysicalReality

Throughouthistory,popularbeliefshavebeenprovenwrongrepeatedlyasnew

evidence comes to light. One widely held belief throughout history was

geocentrism,ortheideathattheearthwasthecenteroftheuniverse.Thiswas

successfully proven false in the 1600s by scientists Galileo, Copernicus, and

Kepler,andtoday,ourspaceprogrammakesitclearthatplanetsorbitsunsnot

justinthisgalaxy,butallofthem(4).Nevertheless,somepeopletodaycontinue

tobelieveingeocentrismregardlessoftheampleevidenceagainstit.AGoogle

search on the topic turns up groups with names like “GalileoWasWrong.com”

and“FixedEarth.com” that insist thatcenturies of scientificevidence are false.

Of course, their beliefs have no effect on reality. Regardless of what these

peoplebelieve,theearthcontinuestorotatearoundthesunasitalwayshas.

Science fiction author Philip K. Dick once stated, “Reality is that which,

whenyoustopbelievinginit,doesn'tgoaway.”Thistouchesontheheartofthe

argumentum ad populum fallacy. Physical reality does not require belief to

sustainit,andbeliefwillnotmodifytherulesoftheuniverse.

ReligiousBeliefIsWidespread,butSpecificBeliefsAreNotUniversal

Even if the widespread nature of religion gave significance to the claims of

theists,itwouldbedifficulttodetermineexactlywhichclaimsitsupports.After

all, the world is made up of many different religions, and none of them agree

about the nature of God. If God were truly responsible for religions being so

widespread,wouldn'titmakesenseforthosereligionstohavemoreincommon?

Most religions claim that theirs is the only true religion. Ultimately, if

religionismeanttodescribesomethingthatexistsinphysicalreality,ratherthan

a subjective mental or emotional truth, every conflicting religion cannot be

correctanditispossiblethatallofthemarewrong.

Ifanything,thepervasivenessof religionthroughouthistoryandacrossthe

world might say more about people than it does about any hypothetical deity.

Similartotheevolutionaryprocessoflivingbeings,itispossiblethatreligions

haveevolvedasaself-replicatingsetofideasinawaythattakeadvantageofour

natural sentiments and desires to increase the rate at which they spread while

disguisingtheirtruenature(5).AsthephilosopherDanielDennettexplains:“If

(some) religions are culturally evolved parasites, we can expect them to be

insidiouslywelldesignedtoconcealtheirtruenaturefromtheirhosts,sincethis

isanadaptationthatwouldfurthertheirownspread.”Thereligionsthatwehave

today are a small fraction of all religions that have existed throughout human

history. The ones that we are left with have survived because they have more

effectivelyadaptedtoattractandholdtheallegianceofmanypeople.

Researchers at Ohio State University have identified 16 separate

psychological desires that motivate people to seek religion, such as honor,

idealism, acceptance, interdependence and fear of death (6). It is likely that

religious beliefs have been so widespread because they tap into the

psychologicaldesiresofmanypeople,notbecausethereisanyexternalproofof

theirveracity.

Sources:

1) “The Global Religious Landscape.” Pew Research Centers Religion Public

LifeProject.December18,2012.AccessedSeptember9,2014.

2) Armstrong, Karen. A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism,

ChristianityandIslam.Ballantine,1994.

3) Bennett, Bo. “Appeal to Popularity.” Logically Fallacious: The Ultimate

Collectionofover300LogicalFallacies.EBookIt.com,2012.

4)Hawking,Stephen.OntheShouldersofGiants.Philadelphia:RunningPress,

2003.

5) Dennett, Daniel C. Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon.

NewYork:Viking,2006.

6)Reiss,Steven.“TheSixteenStrivingsforGod.”Zygon39,no.2(2004):303-

20.AccessedSeptember9,2014.

Chapter6:“Godanswersprayers;therefore,hemust

bereal.”

Prayerisanintegralpartofmostreligions.Theideathatyoucancommunicate

your wishes, hopes and fears to an all-powerful god and receive a response is

powerfully appealing. Prayer feels empowering. If you can change your world

throughprayer,thenyouaretransformedfromahelplessvictimofcircumstance

intoanactiveparticipantinyourlife.However,ifprayerdidnotactuallywork,

this empowerment would be nothing more than an illusion or placebo effect.

Worse,thisillusioncouldbeactivelyharmfulifitweretopreventapersonfrom

taking a different action that might actually have a proven effect on a given

situation.

Proving the efficacy of prayer is actually a fairly straightforward task. To

establish a cause-and-effect relationship, you could create an experiment to

isolateprayerasavariableandchartwhetherprayerhadanypositiveeffecton

theoutcomeofasituation.Asitturnsout,scientistshavedonepreciselythis.

Astudyofheartpatientsin6separatehospitalssoughttodeterminewhether

prayersfromstrangerswouldhaveanyeffectonaperson'srecovery(1).After

carefullyfollowingtherecoveryof1,800heartsurgerypatientsfor30daysafter

thesurgery,researchersfoundabsolutelynolinkbetweenprayerandrecovery.

However,there was a significant difference between those who were aware of

thefactthattheywerebeingprayedforandthosewhodidnotknow.Thosewho

knew ended up suffering more complications, possibly due to the additional

stress it caused. Being told that a high number of people are praying for your

recoverymightincreasehowsevereyouwouldperceiveyourillnesstobeand

thus negatively affect your recovery. To date, there have been no reputable

scientificstudiesshowinganyclearlinkbetweenprayerandhealing.

ConfirmationBias

Of course, despite the lack of scientific evidence to support the efficacy of

prayer,manypeoplecontinuetoinsistthatprayerhasaffectedtheirownlives.

These claims are difficult to refute because they rely on anecdotal evidence.

Anecdotal evidence is basically any claim that says, “This is true because it

happened to me or someone I know.” While it may be true that the event

occurred,anecdotalevidencedoesnothingto explainwhyorhow ithappened,

whichiswhyanecdotalevidenceisoflittleuseinscience.

Inanycasewhereapersonclaimsthehealingpowerofprayer,it'simportant

tolookatallotherpossibleexplanations.Ifyouhaveaheadache,youmighttake

anaspirinandprayforit togoaway.Whentheheadacheclears,howcanyou

know which actions, if any, were responsible? You would need to study the

effectsofonewithouttheothertoknowtheeffectofeach.Onewouldalsoneed

to study these effects across a wide sample size to ensure that enough data is

collectedandthesameeffectoccurseverytime.

When considering the case of prayer's efficacy, you would need to avoid

confirmation bias. Confirmation bias occurs when you record and remember

eventsthatconfirmwithyourviewsandignoreorrationalizethetimesitdidn't

(2). By seeking out evidence that supports your beliefs and ignoring or

downplaying evidence that might disprove views that you already agree with,

youpresentaskewedimageofreality.

TheSelfContradictoryNatureofPrayer

Whenconsideringthesupposedpowerofprayer,it'simportanttolookatthebig

picture.Everyday,peopledie,divorce,becomedisabled,losetheirjobsorlive

inpoverty.It'sreasonabletoassumethatmanyofthesepeopleareprayingfor

bettercircumstanceswithoutreceivinganydivineassistance.

Similarly,considerthatmanyprayersareinherentlyselfish.Whileyoupray

foryourniecetogetamuch-neededhearttransplant,someoneelseisprayingfor

hisorgan-donorson'slifetobespared.Whetheryou'reprayingtowinawarora

footballgame,you'realsoprayingforthepeopleontheopposingsidetolose.To

assumethatGodisnotonlypersonallyinvestedintheminutiaeofyourlifebut

thatyourproblemsareultimatelymoreimportantthanotherproblemshemaybe

asked to solve is both selfish and absurd considering the incredible amount of

individualproblemsandconcernsofeveryhumanonthisplanet.

Within religious circles, this issue becomes more insidious. Working from

theassumptionthat God is good and hears allprayers, many believers ofGod

offerafewpossibleexplanationsforwhyaprayerisnotanswered:

•Youprayedincorrectly.

•Youdon'tbelievehardenough.

•Goddoesn’tseefittograntyourwish.

Someoftheseexplanationsshifttheblameontoapersonwhomayalready

besuffering.Ifyouhadsimplyprayedbetterorbeenabetterperson,badthings

wouldn'thappentoyou.Ifyou'reunhappywithyourlife,perhapsyou'rejusttoo

stupid to understand what’s best for you. The level of potential psychological

damagethiscouldinflictonapersonishuge,andthiskindofemotionaltorment

cannotbejustifiedinthenameofanunsubstantiatedclaim.

In order to sidestep the emotionally painful ramifications of unanswered

prayers, some religious people pose the explanation in a different way.

Accordingtosomebelievers,Godanswersprayersinoneofthreeways:“Yes,”

“No,”and“Wait.”Thissoundsreasonableandevenwisebeforeyourealizethat

this explanation is inherently meaningless. In fact, those three answers cover

everypossibleoutcomeofanyevent.Eitheritwillhappennow,itwillhappen

lateroritwon'thappenatall.Thisistruewhetheryoupraytoadeityortoabar

ofsoap;itdoesnothingtoprovetheexistenceofadeity.

TheHarmfulEffectofPrayer

Aside from the potential psychological damage prayer culture can inflict on

those whose prayers go unanswered, prayer can be actively harmful toward

people and communities. For example, parents who choose to pray for their

childrenratherthanseekmedicalassistanceputtheirchildrenatriskofserious

illness or death (3). In the United States alone, about 140 children with easily

treatableconditionsdiedbetween1975and1995afterparentswithheldmedical

attention, relying only on prayer and faith (4). Similarly, while prayer is

frequently a person's first response to a disaster, it's often the least helpful.

Insteadofprayingfordisastervictims,itwouldbemorehelpfultodonateblood,

senddonationsorvolunteer.Theseareactionsthatcanactuallyhaveapositive

effectonsomeone.

Sources:

1) Dusek, Jeffery A., Jane B. Sherwood, Charles F. Bethea, Sidney Levitsky,

PeterC.Hill,ManojK.Jain,StephenL.Kopecky,PaulS.Mueller,PeterLam,

Herbert Benson, Patricia L. Hibberd, William Carpenter, Donald W. Clem,

DavidDrumel,DeanMarek,andSueRollins.“StudyoftheTherapeuticEffects

of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in Cardiac Bypass Patients: A Multicenter

Randomized Trial of Uncertainty and Certainty of Receiving Intercessory

Prayer.”AmericanHeartJournal151,no.4(2006):934-42.

2) Plous, Scott. The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making. McGraw-

Hill,1993.

3)Roe,Maureen.“10FailedAttemptsToHealChildrenWithFaith-Listverse.”

Listverse.July30,2013.AccessedSeptember14,2014.

4)Swan,Rita.“LettingChildrenDiefortheFaith.”FreeInquiry,December31,

1998.

Chapter7:“IfeelapersonalrelationshipwithGod,so

Iknowthatheisreal.”

Religionishighlypersonalforsomebelievers,anditcanbepervasiveinevery

aspectoftheirlives. Culturalnormsareheavilyinfluenced byreligiousbeliefs

andpractices,andmanyreligions placeaheavyfocusonaperson'sindividual

relationship with a deity. Even people who are not otherwise affiliated with

organizedreligionsmayfeelstronglyabouttheirpersonalrelationshipwithGod.

The problem with using these personal relationships as proof of God's

existence is that they are inherently subjective experiences. A person's

experienceandtheemotionsitcausescanbegenuinewithoutthecauseofthat

experiencebeingbasedonanythingoutsideofhisorhermind.Forexample,we

discussed near-death experiences in Chapter 3. The experience of being

disconnectedfromyourbodyormovingdownatunneltowardabrightlightis

common and feels very real for the person experiencing it. However, studies

haveshownthatnear-deathexperiencesarecausedbychemicalreactionswithin

thebrain(1).Thesamecanbetrueformanyreligiousexperiences.

TheTemporalLobeandReligiousExperiences

WhensomepeopletalkabouttheirpersonalrelationshipwithGod,it'sinfairly

nebulousormetaphoricalterms.Theymightdiscussthewaythatprayingmakes

themfeelmorepeacefulorhowreadingcertainpassagesoftheirpreferredholy

book sends chills down their spine. Others, though, use this description much

moreliterally.Somepeoplereporthavingvisions,hearingthevoiceofGodor

otherwisehavingasensoryexperience.

Of course, emotional effects of prayer do not necessarily have to have a

supernatural origin, and religious people are not the only ones that can have

seeminglyparanormalsensoryexperiences,andtheseexperiencescanoccurin

obviously secular situations. For example, mental illness and drug use can

disrupt normal sensory experiences. In fact, certain hallucinogenic substances

havebeenusedinreligiousceremoniesforcenturiesamongcertaincultures(2).

Recent scientific discoveries have helped to explain some of the chemical

reactionsbehindreligiousexperiences.Partofthisresearchbeganbyexamining

people with temporal lobe epilepsy, a neurological condition which can

frequently trigger religious hallucinations in addition to seizures and sensory

disruptions (3). The basic conclusion we can draw here is that, although

someone may have an extraordinary feeling or experience, the cause of that

experience is not necessarily supernatural. As we know, the same types of

experiencesandfeelingscanbebroughtonbyentirelynaturalandexplainable

causes.

SeeingWhatYouWanttoSee

AsdiscussedinChapterThree,thehumanbrainishard-wiredtospotpatterns,

even in random noise (4). This patternicity, as science historian Michael

Shermercallsit,playsaheavyroleinhowreligiousexperiencesoccur.People

who are raised within a religious culture will generally have experiences that

mirrortheexpectationsofthatculture.Thismeansthatanunexplainedsensory

experiencemightbeattributedbyareligiouspersontobeamessagefromGod.

The same experience felt by another person might be variously attributed as a

ghost, a demon, telepathy, alien abduction or hallucination depending on that

person'sindividualexperiencesandexpectations.

This creates a feedback loop, where people see what they want to believe,

which then supports the beliefs they already hold. While all of this can be

powerfully persuasive for the person experiencing it, none of it constitutes

evidenceofadeity.

TheBurdenofProof

Science is uncovering a better understanding of the neurological basis behind

many religious experiences (5). At the same time, science cannot nor is it

expectedtodisproveclaimsbasedoneverysubjectiveexperienceapersonmay

have.Theburdenof proofisalwaysontheperson makingaclaim,notonthe

personthattheclaimisbeingmadeto.Soinorderforanindividual'spersonal

relationship with God to act as proof of God's existence, it's up to the person

makingthisclaimtosubstantiateit.

Imagine, for example, that a person claims that an angel came down from

heavenforavisitattheirhometoshareacupofteaandplateofbiscuits.Thisis

afar-fetchedclaim,andbeforeyoubelieveit,you’dlikelywantsomeproof:Did

anyoneseetheangel?Diditleavebehindanyevidenceofitspresence?Without

evidence, an explanation fitting the known laws of the universe makes more

sense: Either the person is lying or he is delusional or mistaken about what

happened.

Assumethat two different peoplemake such aclaim. One hallucinated the

entireexperience,whiletheotherwasactuallyvisitedbyanangel.Withoutany

evidence, the two experiences are indistinguishable from the perspective of an

outsider. We have no reason to believe this claim or any other third-party

accountofpersonalexperience.

Aperson'sexperiencesarepersonalandultimatelyunfalsifiable.Wecannot

see other people’s dreams or hear the voices inside their heads. If a person

makestheclaimthatherpersonalexperiencesreflectphysicalreality,sheneeds

to be prepared to back up those claims with actual evidence. Subjective

experiences and anecdotal evidence are not sufficient to provide proof of a

deity'sexistence,andwantingtobelievesomethingdoesnotmakeittrue.

Sources:

1)Blanke,Olaf,andSebastianDieguez.“Leavingbodyandlifebehind:Out-of-

body and near-death experience.” The neurology of consciousness: Cognitive

neuroscienceandneuropathology(2009):303-325.

2)Pinchbeck,Daniel.BreakingOpentheHead:APsychedelicJourneyintothe

HeartofContemporaryShamanism.NewYork:BroadwayBooks,2002.

3)Ramachandran,V.S.,SandraBlakeslee, and OliverSacks.Phantomsinthe

Brain:ProbingtheMysteriesoftheHumanMind.NewYork:WilliamMorrow,

1999.

4) Shermer, Michael. The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics

and Conspiracies---How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths.

St.Martin'sGriffin,2012.

5)Beauregard,Mario,andVincentPaquette.“NeuralCorrelatesOfAMystical

ExperienceInCarmeliteNuns.”NeuroscienceLetters405(2006):186-90.

Chapter8:“It'ssafertobelieveinGodthanbewrong

andgotoHell.”

In the mid-1600s, mathematician and philosopher Blaise Pascal introduced an

argumentthatcouldcometobecalledPascal'sWager.Hisargumentdiscusses

theissueofreligiousbelieffromamathematicalstandpoint,determiningthatthe

costofbeliefis lowerthanthecostof atheism.Thewagertakesthefollowing

format:

•IfyoubelieveinGodandhedoesexist,youwillberewardedwitheternity

inHeaven.

•IfyoubelieveinGodandhedoesnotexist,nothingwillhappentoyou.

• If you reject belief in God and he does exist, you will be doomed to an

eternityinHell.

•Ifyoudon'tbelieveinGodandhedoesn'texist,nothingwillhappentoyou.

Basedonthesesuppositions,Pascal reasons thatit'salwayssafertoliveas

thoughGodisrealbecauseifthereisagodandyoubelieveinhim,thebenefits

areinfinite.IfyoubelieveinGodandturnouttobewrong,youwillhavelost

nothing;ifyoudon’tbelieveinGodandturnouttobewrong,theconsequences

aredire(1).

Pascal was an admittedly brilliant mathematician, and his contributions to

mathematicsarevaluable.Asatheologicalargument,however,Pascal'sWager

breaksdownforseveralimportantreasons.First,it'simportanttorealizethatthe

wager does nothing to prove the nature of God. It's not an argument for the

existenceofgodatall, actually;it’sanargumentagainstatheismbased onthe

relativeopportunityversuscostofbelief.

Second, you must recognize the limitations of Pascal's premise. As a

Christian apologist, his argument works only for the Christian God. It ignores

the possibility of any other deity and assumes that the motives of God are

consistentwiththeteachingsofbasicChristiantheology.Viewedinthecontext

ofworldreligions,thewagerfallsapartcompletely.Thewagerisbasedonthe

mathematicanalysisoffouroutcomes.However,ifyouthrowthemultitudeof

worldreligionsintotheequation,thepremisesandmathematicanalysisbecomes

muchmorecomplexandconvoluted,makingyourchancesofasuccessfulwager

significantlyslimmer.

ChoosingtheRightGod

Multiplereligionsexistthroughouttheworld, and the messages ofmostare at

oddswitheachother.Amongthetwolargestreligions(ChristianityandIslam),

it's clear that worshiping the right deity in the appropriate way is crucial to

finding salvation. To enter Heaven as a Christian, you must be “saved” by

believinginJesusasyoursavior(TheBible:John3:18-36,2Thessalonians1:6-

10andRevelation21:8).AccordingtosomeversesintheQuran,non-Muslims

willendupinHell(TheQuran3:85,4:56,5:72-73,7:50,17:97-98,98:6).Allof

thismeansthatbeliefinGodaloneisnotsufficienttoenterHeaven.

Italsomeansthatifyouhappentobelieveinthe wrong god, you can still

endupinHell—evenifyoufollowthetenetsofyourchosenreligionperfectly.

Forexample,iftheJudeo-ChristianGodwasrealandtheBibleaccurate,every

Muslim,Buddhist,andHinduwouldgotoHell,regardlessofhowdevoutlythey

believedtheirownreligion.TheBiblesays:“Hewillpunishthosewhodonot

knowGodanddonotobeythegospelofourLordJesus.Theywillbepunished

witheverlastingdestructionandshutoutfromthepresenceoftheLordandfrom

the glory of his might” (2 Thessalonians 1:8-9). Similarverses are seen in the

Quran: “And whoever desires other than Islam as religion - never will it be

acceptedfromhim,and he, in theHereafter,willbe among the losers” (3:85).

AccordingtosomedefinitionsofIslamintheQuran,thismayincludeJewsand

Christians but not members of non-Abrahamic religions and people with no

religious affiliation, which together account for about 45% of the world’s

population.Remember,also,thatnoteveryreligionsupportstheideaofHeaven

and Hell. If the “right” god came from a religious tradition without such an

afterlife,Pascal'swagerceasestowork.

Pascal’swagerassumesaverynarrowandspecificdefinitionofGod.Even

iftherewereagod,thereissimplynowaytoknowthattheassumptionslaidout

inthewagerareactuallyaccurate.Forexample,whywouldanall-powerfuland

benevolentdeitybanishhiscreationstoHellfordisbelief?It’sequallylikelythat

a deity might reward his followers for being skeptical, in which case Pascal’s

wagercrumbles.

Moreover, believing in God simply to avoid the punishment of Hell is an

emptytypeofbelief.Surely,anall-knowinggodcouldidentifythisinsincerity

and reward only true believers, not those who worshiped just to avoid

consequences.

What'stheHarm?

Pascalsuggeststhatthereisnothingtoloseinbelieving,evenifGodisnotreal.

Thisisnotnecessarilytrue.BeliefinGodcancomewithahighpriceforsome.

Some of the most powerful nations in the world are making major political

decisionsbasedonabeliefinGod.Warsarefoughtusingreligion,andtherights

ofsomeindividualsandgroupsareoppressedinthenameofGod.Thelivesof

billions of people around the world are affected by religious beliefs. Blindly

acceptingclaimsandmakingdecisionsasiftheyweretrueinthehopethatour

chosen deity exists and will reward our efforts seems like a very poor wager

whenthereisnoevidencetosupportthatchoiceandespeciallyifrealpeopleare

sufferingasaresult.

Sources:

1)Popkin,RichardH.TheColumbiaHistoryofWesternPhilosophy.NewYork:

ColumbiaUniversityPress,1998.

Chapter9:“Godisn’tdefined.Godcannotbe

comprehendedordescribed.Onemustsimplyhave

faith.”

When other arguments fail, many theists turn toward an appeal to faith. This

argumenttakesseveralforms:

•“Idon'tneedevidence;Ijusthavefaith.”

•“Ifyouhadfaith,you'dknowthatitwastrue.”

•“Godcannotbecomprehendedorunderstood.Youjusthavetobelieve.”

In every case, the appeal to faith is ultimately fallacious (1). By this

definition,anappealtofaithisalsoanabandonmentofreason;whenonehasno

logicalargumentforaclaim,theyturntofaithasanexplanationfortheirbelief.

Statingthatyouhavefaithinsomethingmightexplainwhyyoubelieveinit,but

it does nothing to compel anyone else to believe the same way.The mere fact

thatonehasfaithinabeliefsystemcannotpossiblybeconsideredreasonenough

foranothertoadoptthatbeliefsystemaswell.

TheAbsurdityofFaithasanArgument

Faithisofteninvokedinanargumentwhenthepersonmakingaclaimrunsout

ofrationalexplanationstosupporthisbeliefs.It'sadistractionfromthefactthat

there is no real evidence. Once faith enters the equation, the argument can

quicklydissolveintoabsurdity,asabsolutelyanyclaimcouldbe“supported”by

faith.

You might believe that your dog is secretly a werewolf, that you are

abductedbyalienseverynightwhileyousleep,orthatthepresidentisactuallya

holographic illusion. You have no proof to substantiate these claims, but you

havefaiththatyou'recorrect.Thatdoesn'tmeananyonewouldbecompelledto

believe you, however; if anything, the strength of your conviction might be

viewed more as a sign of insanity than the truth of the claim. If you make a

claim,youmustbepreparedtobackitupwithevidence.

Some people might try to defend their argument from faith by saying

somethinglike,“Don'tyouhavefaiththatthesunwillrisetomorrow?”Butthis

isnotanalogous.Wecanknowwithahighdegreeofcertaintythatthesunwill

rise because we know the natural processes that govern the movement of the

earth in our solar system. From observable evidence, we know that the world

worksinacertainway.Wedon'tneedfaith;wehaveevidence.Thesamecannot

besaidforaclaimthathasnoevidence.

GodCannotBeDefined

Some theists do not come out and make an appeal to faith directly. Instead,

they'll say things like “God cannot be described” or “God cannot be

comprehendedbythehuman mind.” Regardless of the formtheseclaimstake,

they always come down to an appeal to faith. If you cannot comprehend or

describesomething,youcan'tpossiblyhavearationaljustificationforbelieving

in it. An indescribable god may be unfalsifiable, but it is also unprovable.For

example, if I were to present an archaeological research paper regarding a

completely new type of pottery that had never been seen before and was

previouslyunknownof,mycolleagueswouldexpectmetoaccuratelydescribe

this pottery in order to clarify its typography and confirm its existence. If I

claimednottoknowwhatitevenlookedlike,anyexplanationwouldnotmake

senseinthecontextofmyclaimthatthispotteryexists.Ifthepotteryexisted,in

ordertomaketheclaimofitbeingareality,Ishouldatleastbeabletoclarifyits

definingcharacteristics,suchascolor,glaze,decoration,thickness,form,etc.It

simplywouldn’tmakesenseformetoclaimsuchapotteryexistsyetnoteven

be able to clarify whether it was brown or not. If I don’t know or could not

discoveritscharacteristics,thenIalsocan’tknowifitexists.

People faced with the idea of a god who cannot be described or

comprehendedmayfeelthatthereisinsufficientevidencetosayconfidentlythat

thedeitydoesnotexist.Theydonot,however,haveanyreasontobelievethatit

does, and barring evidence in favor of a deity, they will continue living their

livesasthoughtherewerenoGod.

TheIrrelevanceofFaith

AsdiscussedinChapter5,believinginsomethingdoesnotmakeittrue.Reality

exists independently of your beliefs. It's possible to believe in things that are

false,andrealitycontinuestobetrueevenifyoudon'tbelieveinit.

For example, say you are given a wrapped package. You believe that the

packagecontainsadiamondnecklace.However,inreality,thepackagecontains

a Game of Thrones DVD box set. No matter how firmly you believe in the

diamondnecklace,thatdoesnotchangetheactualcontentsofthepackage.Your

faithinthenecklacedoesnotaffectthenatureofwhatisactuallyinsideofthe

box.

Whenfacedwithanygivensituationordecision,therearemanymoreways

tobewrongthantoberight.Withthehypotheticalwrappedbox,forexample,

youcouldguessdozensorthousandsoftimeswhatmightbeinside,andallof

thoseguessesmight bewrong.Ifyouhave noevidencetosupportyour claim,

thereisnoreasontoassumethatyourguessiscorrect,andthereiscertainlyno

reasonwhyanyoneelseshouldbelievethatyourguessistherightone.

Sources:

1) Bennett, Bo. “Appeal to Faith.” Logically Fallacious: The Ultimate

Collectionofover300LogicalFallacies.EBookIt.com,2012.

Chapter10:“There'snoevidencethat

Goddoesn'texist.”

Whenconfrontedwithcriticism,some theists will pulloutthisargumentinan

attempt to shift the burden of proof toward the critic. Although this tactic can

feel very clever, it opens a door to absurdity. This argument seems to suggest

thatwebelieveineverything,eventhingswehaveyettothinkabout,untilthat

beliefisprovenfalse.That'ssimplynotalogicalwaytoperceivereality.

Ifthecriteriaforsomethingbeingacceptedastruewasbasedpurelyonthere

being no evidence against it, an endless number of hypothetical objects could

suddenlybecome“real.”Thishasbeenthesourceofnumerousplayfulthought

experimentsbyskepticsaroundtheworld:

• The flying spaghetti monster, who created the earth with his noodly

appendage(1).

•Theinvisiblepinkunicorn,whose“believers”logicallyknowthatshemust

beinvisiblebecauseshehasnotbeenseen,yethavefaiththatshe'spink(2).

• The dragon in Carl Sagan's garage, a thought experiment he describes in

The Demon-Haunted World. The dragon is invisible, floats in the air,

generates no heat and is incorporeal, thus evading all forms of sensory

detection(3).

• Russell's Teapot, a hypothetical teapot that you cannot proveisn'torbiting

thesun(4).

Ofcourse,alloftheseexamplesweredesignedingoodfun.BertrandRussell

doesnotactuallybelievethatthereisateapotorbitingthesun.However,thereis

no way to definitively prove that these fanciful claims aren't true, which

demonstratesthetotalabsurdityofthislineofthinking.

AdHocArguments

CarlSagan'sinvisibledragonargumentshowsthefutilityofadhocargumentsin

explainingreality.Anadhocargumentisonethatmakesexcusestorationalize

awaythevalidcriticismsofanargumentwithoutanyevidencetosupportit(5).

Whentheclaimantdesperatelywantssomethingtobetrue,she'lloftenemploy

anadhocargumenttocounteranyargumentstoherclaim.

ThedragoninCarl Sagan'shypotheticalgaragecannotbe seen becauseit's

invisible. A skeptic might press for evidence. But its footprints cannot be

observedbecauseithoversintheair,andthedragon’sinvisiblefireisheatless.

Arationalizationcanbeformedtoexplaintheabsenceofanyformofevidence.

Theserationalizationsdon'tmaketheoriginalclaimtrue.Indeed,it'seasiestto

makeadhocargumentsaboutthingsthatdon'treallyexistbecausethatfreesyou

uptocreateincreasinglyfancifularguments.

Whenappliedtotheism,thisadhocreasoningcanbeseenintheincreasingly

vague descriptions of God. The rationalizations discussed in the last chapter –

thatGodcannotbecomprehendedordescribed–fallundertheadhocfallacy.

Such rationalizations make God so vague that it becomes impossible to refute

theidea,buttheygettheclaimantnowhereclosertoprovinghisclaim.

DisbeliefIsNottheSameasBeliefinSomethingElse

TellinganatheisttoprovethatthereisnoGodautomaticallyassumesthatthisis

what the atheist believes. While gnostic atheists confidently believe that there

are no deities, many other atheists are agnostic atheists. In other words, these

peopledonotbelieveinanygods,buttheydonotclaimtobecertainthatany

godsdonotexist.Gnosticatheists,meanwhile,dofeelconfidentsayingthatno

godsexist. Both are valid types of atheism.It isimportant to note that atheism

and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. To understand the difference

betweenatheismandagnosticism,visitAtheismVsAgnosticism.com.

Lackofbeliefindeitiesisenoughtoclassifysomeoneasanatheist.Lacking

beliefinsomethingdoesnotmeanthatyoubelieveittobefalse;itjustmeans

that you have no conviction that it’s true. For example, a friend of yours may

believethatFordisthebestcarcompanyintheworld.Youhavenoparticular

opinioninthematteronewayortheother.Youdon’tbelievethatFordisbetter

thananyothercarbrand,butyoualsodon’tknowthatit’snotthebestcarbrand.

Inthissituation,youwouldbeagnosticaboutyourfriend’sclaim.

Inactuality,mostpeopleareatheistaboutatleastsomegods.Afterall,there

arethousandsofgodsthroughoutthehistoryofworldtheology,butthemajority

ofreligious people have noproblem in disbelieving Zeus,Thor or Anubis (6).

JewsandMuslimshavenotroubledenyingthedivinityofChrist.Monotheists

arewellpracticedindisbelievingothergods.AsRichardDawkinsputit,atheists

simplytakethisonegodfurther.

Religions demand perfect evidence from anyone rebutting their claims but

offernone for their ownclaims. If faced with convincing evidence infavor of

anydeity,weshouldreconsiderourposition.Butweneedtoaskquestionsand

gowhere the evidence leads us, rather than try to lead the evidence where we

like. By questioning everything, we follow the evidence, rather than trying to

forcetheevidencetofitourpresupposedconclusions.

Sources:

1) Henderson, Bobby. “About.” Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

AccessedSeptember15,2014.

2) Ashman, Alex. “The Invisible Pink Unicorn.” H2g2. February 8, 2007.

AccessedSeptember15,2014.

3) Sagan, Carl, and Ann Druyan. “The Dragon in My Garage.” The Demon-

HauntedWorld:ScienceasaCandleintheDark.BallantineBooks,1997.

4) Russell, Bertrand. “Is There a God? [1952].” In The Collected Papers of

Bertrand Russell. Vol. 11: Last Philosophical Testament. London: Routledge,

1997.

5) Bennett, Bo. “Ad Hoc Rescue.” Logically Fallacious: The Ultimate

Collectionofover300LogicalFallacies.EBookIt.com,2012.

6) Jordan, Michael. Dictionary of Gods and Goddesses. 2nd ed. New York:

FactsonFile,2004.

Chapter11:“IfthereisnoGod,wheredideverything

comefrom?WithoutGod,thereisnoexplanation.”

The origin of the universe is one of the greatest unanswered questions in the

historyofmankind.Humans havebeendebatingitforthousands ofyears,and

every religion attempts to posit a different explanation. In Chapter 1, we

discussedtheissueofcomplexityandtouchedontheoriginsoflife.Questions

abouttheoriginoftheuniverse–or,indeed,theoriginofrealityingeneral–are

morechallengingforsciencetotacklehead-on.Thesimpleansweris:wedon’t

know. We may never know exactly how the universe was formed or what, if

anything, came before it, although science does have a few ideas to explore.

However, not knowing the answer does not give us free range to make

somethingup.

It’s human nature to be uncomfortable with the unknown. Historically,

humans have filled these uncertain areas with a deity or other supernatural

claims to explain what they have yet to discover. This creates a “god of the

gaps,”whereinGodisinvokedasanexplanationineventsthathumansdon’tyet

understand. The problem with this, of course, is that scientific knowledge is

always expanding, and the gaps continue to grow smaller. We have identified

many of the natural causes behind these gaps throughout our history and have

yet to come across God in any of them. It’s possible that this pattern will

continueinthefuture,leavinglittleroomforGodasaweakexplanation,andthe

currentmonotheisticideasofGodwillbecomeasoutdatedforfuturegenerations

astheGreekpantheonistoday.

ThePrimeMover

ThecosmologicalargumentforGodisanattempttoinferGod’sexistencefrom

the known facts of the universe. Essentially, this argument states that because

everything is derived by cause and effect, something must have caused the

universetobecreated.However,althoughmanyphysicallawsoftheuniversedo

generally work in a cause-and-effect way, that does not necessarily mean that

Godisthecause.

If you follow events backwards through time, you will always find a

precedingeventthat ledtoit,buttheistsreason thatthischainofevents could

not go on forever. Something must have started all of it into motion. Since

eventscannotcausethemselves,somethingelsemusthaveexistedfirsttocause

allofthesethings.

Thismightseemlikeareasonableargument,butitfallsvictimtothesame

problemasthehypotheticalGodbehindtheargumentfromdesign,asdiscussed

inChapter1:ifeverythinghasacauseoracreator,thenwhocreatedGod?And

who,then,createdtheentitythatcreatedGod?Ratherthansolvingtheproblem

of infinite causality, the cosmological argument simply recreates the problem

usingdifferentterms.Godisusedasananswer,butinreality,theissueofGod

simply raises new questions. You cannot solve a mystery by using a bigger

mysteryastheanswer.

This issue falls prey to the “special pleading” fallacy, a specific type of

hypocrisythatariseswhensomeonerealizesthatthesolutionhe’sofferingfails

to live up to the rules he’s already established (1). In this type of fallacy, the

rules apply to everything but the arguer’s solution, which gets a special

exception for the rule despite there being no clear reason why that exception

shouldexistinthefirstplace.Ifeverythingrequiresacreator,whydoesn’tGod?

AndifGoddoesnotrequireacreator,whymusteverythingelse?

Indeed,if we can accept the idea that something could existwithout being

created–astheistsclaimfortheirgod(s)–whycouldthissamelogicnotapply

totheuniverseitself?Thiswouldcutoutthemiddlemanandmakejustasmuch

senseasadeitywithouttheothercomplicationsthatbeliefinGodcancreate.

MisunderstandingPhysics

Many theists who pose the cosmological argument do so from a place of

misunderstanding physics. Most specifically, they will cite the First Law of

Thermodynamics,statingthat“matterandenergycannotbecreatedordestroyed

(2).” Note that mass is a form of energy. From this, they postulate that

something cannot come out of nothing in the natural world, which necessarily

meansthatasupernaturalexplanationisrequired.

While the theistic argument claims that the First Law of Thermodynamics

provesthatthereneedstobeasourceforallmatterandenergyintheuniverse,

infact,thereareotherwaysthatthiscouldbetrue.Forexample,theuniverse,or

multipleuniverses,could haveexistedforeverwiththesame amountofmatter

and energy. Or the universe’s, or multiple universes’, positive and negative

energycouldadduptozero.Wesimplydon’tyetknowthecompleteworkings

andlawsoftheuniverseatthispointintime,butthatdoesn’tmeanthatwecan

fillinthegapsofourknowledgewithGod.Infact,ifGodcancreatematterand

energy, why couldn’t a natural process that we do not understand yet do the

sameaswell?

Additionally, the very idea of invoking natural laws as a defense of the

supernatural is inherently absurd. If a deity truly existed who could break all

natural laws and exist outside of reality, there would be no need for him to

conformtothelawsofphysics.Requiringsciencetosupportyouropinionabout

somethings,likethermodynamics,whileignoringitwhenitdisagreeswithyour

other beliefs, like evolution, is a flagrant misappropriation of scientific

principles.

TheCosmologicalArgumentSaysNothingaboutGod

Even if we were to accept that the universe required some sort of “prime

mover,”ororiginatingforce,thereisnoevidencetosuggestthatthisforcemust

conformtoanyofthetraitsgenerallyattributedtoagod.Ifindeedtherewerea

creator, there’s no reason why that creator should necessarily be intelligent or

have any sort of consciousness at all. There is certainly no reason why that

creatorshouldinanywayresemblethegod(s)describedbyanyoftheworld’s

religions.Notethatthereisalsonoevidencetosuggestthatthisoriginatingforce

mustbesupernaturalorspiritualinnaturetobeginwith.Afterall,anoriginating

forcemayjustaswellbeaneventinvolvingphysicallaws.

Evenifthecosmologicalargumentweretobetrueinthesense of a prime

mover, that claim does nothing whatsoever to prove the existence of a deity

unlessthedefinitionof “deity”isconfinedpurelytomean“forces thatcreated

the universe.” If that were the case, you could just as easily call electricity,

gravityorthestrongnuclearforceagod.Thegeneraldefinitionofagodamong

religiouspeopledemandsconsciousnessandintelligenceinthatgod,andthereis

absolutely no evidence that such consciousness exists in any natural forces

currentlyknowntoman.

Sources:

1) Bennett, Bo. “Special Pleading.” Logically Fallacious: The Ultimate

Collectionofover300LogicalFallacies.EBookIt.com,2012.

2) Atkins, Peter. The Laws of Thermodynamics: A Very Short Introduction.

Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2010.

Chapter12:“Myreligion/Godhashelpedmeso

much.Howcoulditnotbereal?”

Formanybelievers,religiondoesmorethanprovideanswersaboutthenatureof

realityormorallife.Italsoprovidesasocialframeworkandsupportsystem,and

thiscan make up the backboneof a person’s cultural identity. In some places,

culture and religion are so tightly entwined that they become inseparable, and

rejectingthetenetsofreligioncanimposefeelingsofisolation.

To be sure, churches, mosques, temples and other religious communities

havemanybeneficialfeatures.Theyhostsocialeventsandfacilitatefriendships.

They provide support, offer counseling services and pool resources to offer

financial support. Some religious groups are active in their communities, and

manywell-knowncharitableorganizationshavereligiousroots.

However,thebenefitsofreligiouscommunitiesdonotprovetheexistenceof

a deity. If anything, what they do prove is that people can be mobilized to do

great things to help themselves and each other when united under a common

goal. The benefits of belonging to a religious community are not uniquely

theistic, and it’s possible to get similar results through a secular community

withoutanyofthemoreharmfulaspectsofreligion.

There is no evidence to suggest that God helps people. There is, however,

ample evidence that people can help themselves and each other. As such, the

benefits of a religious community can be found in any group of people united

toward a common cause. Many atheist groups and organizations also exist to

provideasenseofcommunityandsupportfornon-religiouspeople.

PositiveExperiencesDoNotProveGod

In Chapter 7, we discussed the difficulty of disproving a person’s subjective

experience, but we also showed how those subjective experiences could not

serveasevidencetosupporttheclaimofadeity.Thesameistrueforaperson’s

experienceasamemberofachurch,mosqueortemple.Aperson’sexperiences

withinaparticularreligiouscommunitymaybepositive,butthoseexperiences

arebynomeansguaranteedorserveasproofoftheexistenceofGod.Atheists

andtheistsalikecansufferfromdepressionorovercomeadversity;thisdoesnot

affecttheargumentforGodinanyway.

Helpfulpeopleorbeneficialcommunitiesarenotlocalizedtoanyparticular

religion. Many advocacy groups are secular, such as Doctors Without Borders

andUNICEF,andit’shardtoignorethecontributionsthesegroupshavemade.

Clearly, it’s possible to make a positive impact without God; a beneficial

community,therefore,doesnotrequireadeitynorprovideevidenceforone.

Furthermore, not everyone who attends church will have a positive

experience.Additionally,manyterriblecrimeshavebeencommittedinthename

ofGod,includingwars,genocideandsuicidecults.Ifthepositivethingsthatcan

happeninchurchareevidenceofGod’sbenevolence,thenwouldthesenegative

outcomesbeevidenceofGod’scruelty?Tosuggestotherwisewouldbetofall

intothefallacyof“specialpleading,”asdiscussedinthelastchapter.

WhatAboutthePeopleGodDoesn’tSave?

For every story about how God or religion has brought about good things or

events in a person’s life, there are also religious people suffering. Believers

experiencehardship.Theycangetsick,sufferfromdepression,enduredomestic

abuseordieprematurely,justlikeanyoneelse.IfGodisreallyresponsiblefor

allthingsthathappeninaperson’slife,hemustalsoberesponsibleforthebad

thingsoratleastallowthemtohappen.

Asmentioned,religionhasalsobeenresponsibleforalotofterriblethings

throughouthistory,bothonaninstitutionalandpersonallevel.Ifyouacceptthat

God is responsible for the good things that happen in a person’s life, without

evidence, how can you not also accept that God is responsible for people

murdering their families, participating in religious wars or discriminating and

harmingothersbasedonreligiousbeliefsandviewpoints(1)?

AsdiscussedinChapter6,prayerculturecanhaveaninsidiouslydevastating

effectonanindividual.Accordingtomanybelieversinthepowerofprayer,all

things that happen are God’s will, and you can change your circumstances

throughanappealtothedeity.Formany,thismeansthatiftheirprayersarenot

answered,it’stheirownfault;theyprayedincorrectly,didn’tbelieveenough,are

notgodlyenoughordonotaskfortherightthing.Ontheotherhand,ifthings

are going well in your life, it’s because your prayers have been answered or

becauseGodisgoodandmerciful.

This can create an environment of crippling insecurity and learned

helplessness.Thesereligiousmessagesteachpeople–especiallyyoungpeople–

thattheyarenotincontroloftheirownlivesanddonothavethepowertoshape

their own destinies. The psychological consequences of this can become

devastating. Psychologist Dr. Marlene Winell refers to such problems as

Religious Trauma Syndrome, a cluster of symptoms including anxiety,

depression and social functioning troubles caused or exacerbated by religious

indoctrination(2).

Sources:

1) “God Told Me to Do It.” Huffington Post. Accessed September 15, 2014.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/god-told-me-to-do-it/.

2) Winell, Marlene. “Religious Trauma Syndrome.” British Association for

Behavioural&CognitivePsychotherapies.AccessedSeptember16,2014.

Chapter13:“Godislove;Godisenergy.”

In Chapter 9, we discussed the tendency of some religious people to redefine

Godin such a way that their claimsbecomeunfalsifiable. A vague concept of

God becomes impossible to disprove, but it is also impossible to support with

anytypeofevidence.IfyouclaimthatGodexistsbutcannotsayexactlywhat

Godis,yourclaimisultimatelymeaningless.

SomepeopleattempttodefineGodasbeingsynonymouswiththingsthatare

already proven to exist: nature, the universe, love, energy, etc. For example,

authorBrendanMcPhillipssuggestsinhisarticle,“EinsteinProvestheExistence

of God,” that God is the energy that creates mass as described in the famous

equation E=MC² (1). According to McPhillips, the energy responsible for

creatingtheuniverseandeverythingwithinitisGod.

Theproblemwiththisisthatwealreadyhavetheword“energy,”anditsuits

thispurposeofdescribingenergyjustfinewithoutusingtheword“God.”Godis

atermthatcomeswithalotofadditionalbaggage.Formosttheists,Goddoes

more than create the universe; he’s also responsible for answering prayers,

passingdivinejudgmentorcausingthingstohappeninanindividual’slife.God

hasaconsciousnessandabilitytothink,speak,actandmakedecisions.

There is no evidence whatsoever that energy has consciousness or self-

awareness. Without those qualities, nothing about energy is divine or

supernatural.SayingthatGodisenergy serves only totalkabouttheproposed

definitionofwords.Itdoeslittletoprovidemoreinformationaboutthephysical

world,anditcertainlysaysnothingaboutthenatureofexistenceofadeity.

DefinitionsofGod

Thereareseveraltypesoftheists,eachofthemdefiningGodintheirownway

but all of them generally agreeing on some basic premises. Monotheists, like

many Christians, Jews and Muslims, believe in a single supernatural, all-

powerful deity. Polytheists, like Hindus, believe in multiple deities or a single

deitywhocantakemultipleforms,dependingonthespecificsoftheirparticular

belief system. In either case, when these people refer to God, they have

somethingveryspecificinmind.ForthethreeAbrahamicreligions,Christianity,

IslamandJudaism,Godisanall-powerful,benevolentdeitywhoisresponsible

forcreatingandmaintainingorderintheuniverse.Thisdeityisbelievedtoplay

aroleineveryperson’sday-to-daylife,answeringprayers,performingmiracles

andpunishingsinners.

Somepeople believe in God withoutsubscribing to a particular religionor

adheringtoaspecificdefinitionaslaidoutbyareligioustext.Manysuchpeople

aredeistswhobelieveinanintelligent,supernaturalbeingwhocreatedtheworld

and established all of its natural laws. After that event, this impersonal deistic

god plays no further role in the universe; he doesn’t answer prayers, perform

miraclesorhaveanyeffectonthelivesofindividualsorthethingsthathappen

intheuniverse.

Althoughthedeistgodisquitedifferentfromthegodofmosttheists,heis

neverthelesspresumedtobeanintelligent,supernaturalbeingwithsomesortof

consciousness.Althoughdeistsoftendonotsubscribetoanyparticularchurchor

religiousaffiliation,theyareneverthelesstheists.Theproblemwithdeismisthat

it’s ultimately impossible to prove; a passive, non-intervening god is

indistinguishable from the complete absence and nonexistence of a god in our

universe, as neither of these scenarios include a deity intervening or affecting

ourworld.

Forsomepeople,“god”issimplyawordusedtodescribecertainconcepts,

likenaturallawsortheuniverseitself.Apantheistisapersonwhobelievesthat

thewords“god”and“nature”aresynonymous.Insomecases,peoplewiththese

beliefs may believe that these natural forces are inherently divine. Others may

seesomesortofspiritualpowerinnaturewithoutascribingittoadeity.Theydo

notbelieveintheexistenceofasupernaturalsentientbeingthatexistsapartfrom

thenaturalworld.Forthesepeople,theusageoftheword“god”ismetaphorical,

a poetic device used to ascribe a sense of spirituality or wonder to the natural

world,notthenameofanyrealdeity.Pantheismis,asRichardDawkinsputit,

“sexedupatheism”(2).

All of this quibbling about language may seem inconsequential, but it

underliesanimportantpointaboutthewayweapproachlanguageandourworld.

If the word “god” can mean anything to anyone, then it essentially carries no

meaning.Thevery concept of humanlanguage and communicationdependson

words and sounds that are clearly defined and have a consistent meaning

throughoutthepopulationofthosewhousethatlanguage.

WordsAreNotObjects

Thewordsusedtodescribeanobjecthavenoeffectonthenatureoftheobject

itself. When imagined in other terms, it becomes clear how fallacious the

argument“Godisenergy”reallyis:

“God”ismypetcat.

Mycatexists.

Therefore,Godexists.

Allthisservestoproveisthatmycat’snameisGod.ItdoesnotimbueGod

the Cat with any of the qualities people assign to deities: omniscience,

omnipotence,benevolenceorhavingsupernaturalabilities.Thus,callingmycat

God is meaningless in terms of defining and proving the existence of a deity.

Thesameistruefor“Godisenergy”oranyothersimilarclaim.Unlessyouare

also claiming that energy has the supernatural abilities generally attributed to

deities,thestatementisvoidofmeaning.Justlikeclaimsfortheexistenceofthe

Abrahamic God, claiming that energy, love, gravity or any other natural force

hassupernaturalabilitiescanbeignoredifnotsupportedbyverifiableevidence.

We already have words for things we know to exist. We don’t need to

redefine those words, and doing so only serves to create confusion and a

breakdown of effective communication and language understanding. The word

“god”canmeananything,butithasagenerallyaccepteddefinitionthatpeople

haveusedforthousandsofyears.Ifthewordistoretainanymeaningatalland

not become completely useless, we must continue using it in the way it has

always been defined: as the description of a conscious supernatural deity who

created our world or, at least, some major attributes of it and the rules that

governit.

Asillustratedthroughoutthisbook,thereisnoevidencewhatsoeverthatan

intelligentsupernaturalentityexists.SayingthatGodisenergydoesnotsupport

thetheistconceptofagodand thuscannotactas anysortofcounterargument

againstatheism.

Sources:

1) McPhillips, Brendan. “Einstein Proves the Existence of God!” Brendan

McPhillips.AccessedSeptember16,2014.

2)Dawkins,Richard.TheGodDelusion.Boston:HoughtonMifflin,2006.

Chapter14:“Thelawsoflogicprovetheexistenceof

God.”

One relatively new counterargument to atheism is the so-called transcendental

argument for God, or TAG, as popularized by Matt Slick of Christian

Apologetics&ResearchMinistry(CARM)(1).

Although the transcendental argument for God as displayed on the CARM

websiteisfairlynew,theideasbehindittracebackatleastasfarasImmanuel

Kant(2).Kantintroducestheideaandstructureofthetranscendentalargument

usingcertainlogicaltruthsorlawsthatareuniversal,unchangeableandabsolute.

WhattheTranscendentalArgumentActuallySays

Fromaphilosophicalstandpoint,therearethreelogicalabsolutes:

1.LawofIdentity:Somethingiswhatitisandisn'twhatitisnot.Something

thatexistshasaspecificnature.Forexample,an apple is that apple, and a

rockisthatrock.Inotherwords,whateveris,is.

2.LawofNon-contradiction:Twoopposingstatementscannotbothbetrue.

Forexample,“thisisanapple”and“thisisarock”cannotbothbetrueifthe

object in both statements is referring to the same thing. In other words,

nothingcanbothbeandnotbe.

3.LawofExcludedMiddle:Astatementcannotbebothtrueandfalseatthe

sametimeinthesamesense.Forexample,thestatement“thisisanapple”is

eithertrueorfalse;anobjectbeinganapplecan’tbebothtrueandfalseat

thesametime.Inotherwords,everythingmusteitherbeornotbe.

Theselawsarenecessarilyabsolute.Theyarealwaystrue,andtherecanbe

noexceptions.Someonewhosays,“Thisrockisanapple,”makesnosense,as

thatstatementdefiesthelawsoflogic;inorderforadiscussiontotakeplace,all

parties involved must agree that rocks, once defined, are always rocks and

adheretotheirdefinitions.

The TAG argument builds on these laws of logic to provide the following

“proof”ofGod:

1.Logicalabsolutesexist.

2. These laws of logic are conceptual in nature, not physical. They do not

existanywhereinthephysicalworld.

3.Becausetheseabsolutesareconceptual,theymusthavebeenconceivedin

amind.

4. However, these laws are perfect and absolute. Human minds are not

perfectorabsolute.

5. Logical absolutes are true everywhere and are not dependent on human

minds.

6. Therefore, these laws of logic must exist in a perfect, absolute,

transcendentalmind.

7.ThatmindiscalledGod.

Put in another way, logical absolutes must be the product of a mind, and

theselawsareabsolute,sotheremustbeanabsolutemindbehindthemwiththat

mindbeingGod.

In order for a logical proof to work, two conditions must be met: The

premises must be true, and the structure must support the premises to their

logical conclusion. Structurally, the argument is logically sound; if every

premiseweretrue,thentheoutcome wouldalsobetrue.However,asweshall

see,thepremisesarenottrue,whichinvalidatestheargumententirely.

TheFallacyofEquivocation

The problem with the TAG is that the laws of logic are descriptive, not

prescriptive.Inotherwords,thelawsaresimplyadescriptionofthingsweknow

tobetrue.Theuniversedoesnotconformtologicalabsolutesbecausesomeone

thought them up and is holding reality to that standard. These absolutes exist

purely to describe patterns that we have observed as true in reality. To

understand the difference between a descriptive and prescriptive law, consider

thisexample:

Gravity is a descriptive law. Isaac Newton didn’t create gravity. It existed

beforeheidentifieditandwouldhavecontinuedexistingregardlessofwhether

hehadevergivenitaname.Thelawsofgravityaresimplyobservationsmade

byscientiststhatexplainnaturalprocesses.

Thetrafficspeedlimitisaprescriptivelaw.Itwascreatedandenforcedby

people,andit’smeaninglesswithoutsuchenforcement.Ifnoonecameupwitha

speedinglimitorheldpeopleaccountableforspeeding,speedlimitswouldcease

toexist.

Inthesameway,thelawsoflogicaredescriptive.Noonemadethemupor

wrote them in a handbook somewhere for them to exist. They were simply

observed as always being true (rocks are always rocks because if a rock were

anything else, it would cease to be a rock). Because the laws of logic are not

prescriptive,theydonotrequirethemindofadeityoranyothermindtoexist.

Human minds can identify them and put them into words, but the phenomena

these laws refer to would continue to exist regardless of whether a deity or

anyoneelsethoughtaboutthem.

ProponentsofTAGconflatethedescriptionoflogicallawswiththenatural

phenomenatheyreferto.Equatinganobjectwithitsdescriptionislikeequating

a photograph of a car with the real thing; although the photograph accurately

depicts an image of the car, you cannot apply the qualities of the photo in

accuratelydescribingtherealcar.Otherwise,youmighterroneouslyextrapolate

thatcarsareflatandfitinthepalmofyourhand.Thesameistrueforthelawsof

logic.Thestatement“A=A”isaconceptualdescriptionof aphysicalproperty.

The statement itself requires a mind to describe it. However, the physical

propertywouldremaintrue,withorwithoutamindtoconceiveit.

What this means is that these descriptions themselves are what is purely

conceptual.Butthelawstheydescribearenotconceptual.Whattheselawsrefer

to is the consistency of existence, which exists whether or not they’re being

describedoridentifiedbya mind. A rockisalwaysarockbecauseitexistsin

reality.Iftherewerenomindtoobservetherock,itwouldstillbearock.Minds

arenecessaryonlytodescribethatphenomenon,nottomakeittrue.

ThefallacyofequivocationoccursbecausetheTAGargumentuseslogical

absolutesinmorethanonesense(3).Logicalabsolutes,asdescribedinstepone

oftheTAGargumentabove,arephysicalunderpinningsoftheuniverse;instep

two, they are the descriptions of those laws, like the photograph described

earlier.Logical absolutes do exist. However, these laws are not conceptual in

nature. We do not need any minds for them to exit. We only need minds to

observe, understand and express these laws. Furthermore, our perceptions of

theselawsarebynomeansperfect,unchangingorabsolute.

OtherFlawswiththeTranscendentalArgument

EvenifthepremisesofTAGweresound,theargumentstillleavesmuchtobe

desiredasevidenceoftheexistenceofGod.Ifyouweretoacceptthepremise

that universal concepts require a universal mind to think of them, there is

nothingtosuggestwhatthatmindmightbelike.

In other words, the transcendent mind behind the rules of logic would not

necessarilyneedtohaveanyofthequalitiescommonlyassociatedwithdeities,

includingbenevolence,omnipotence,aroleinthecreationoftheuniverseanda

source of morality. There is nothing in the transcendental argument to suggest

that the hypothetical mind behind the rules of logic was capable of or

responsibleforanythingotherthanconceivingofthoselaws.Assuch,itwould

fail to actually prove anything about the existence of deities or provide

convincing reason to worship or attempt to create personal relationships with

god(s).

Sources:

1) Slick, Matt. “The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God.”

CARM.AccessedSeptember16,2014.

2) Kant, Immanuel and David Walford. “The Only Possible Argument in

SupportofaDemonstrationoftheExistenceofGod.”TheoreticalPhilosophy,

1755-1770.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1992.

3)Bennett,Bo.“Equivocation.”LogicallyFallacious:The Ultimate Collection

ofover300LogicalFallacies.EBookIt.com,2012.

Chapter15:“BelievinginGodprovidesmeaningand

purpose;withoutit,lifewouldbemeaningless.”

Religion,particularlyorganizedreligion,providesmanypeoplewithasenseof

purposeandcommunity.AswediscussedinChapter12,religiouscommunities

canhavemanybeneficialeffectsandoftensitatthecoreofaperson’scultural

identity, but that does not make the claims of those religions true. In reality,

religion itself does not assign meaning to an individual’s life. Instead,

individualschoosetogivetheirlivesmeaningthroughtheactivitiestheypursue

and the convictions they hold. Meaning can be found outside of religion, and

seekingone’sownmeaninginlifecanbefarmorefulfillingthanfollowingthe

rulesofanoutsidereligiousauthority.

ReligiousClaimsAreNotProof

There’sacommonthreadrunningthroughoutmanyoftheclaimsinthisbook:

believinginsomethingdoesnotmakeittrue.Similarly,wantingsomethingtobe

true does not affect its likelihood of actually being true. I might want to be a

billionaire,butwantingitdoesnotcausemybankaccounttoswell.IfIsaythat

I’mabillionairewithoutanythingtosupportthatclaim,noonehasanyreasonto

believeme.AndifitturnsoutthatIamnot,infact,abillionaire,thenIameither

aliarordelusional.

Thesameistrueforreligiousbeliefs.Itdoesn’tmatterwhetherbelievingin

something makes you feel better about yourself or gives your life meaning; if

thereisnoprooftosubstantiatethosebeliefs,theycannotactasevidenceabout

thenatureofreality.

Whenapersonsays,“WithoutGod,lifehasnomeaning,”whathe’sreally

sayingis:“Iwanttobelievethatlifehasmeaning,andIcan’timaginehowthat’s

possiblewithoutGod,soIwanttobelievethatGodisreal.”Whilethisdesireis

understandable, it’s neither convincing nor necessary. It’s possible to have a

meaningful life without any religious convictions, and relying on religion to

provideyourlifewithsignificancecanbepsychologicallydamaging.

Whenyouseekvalidationandmeaningfromoutsidesources,youriskbeing

failed by the same institution that previously gave meaning to your life.

Moreover,thecultureofreligioncanleadtoidenticalgroupthinkingandlossof

objectivity.Whenactionsareinformedbybeliefs,falsebeliefscangiveriseto

dangerousorharmfulactions.

AnUncomfortableTruthIsAlwaysBetterthanaComfortingLie

In order to indoctrinate their followers and secure obedience, religions

frequentlytearpeopledown,creatinganemptinessthatmustthenbefilledwith

Jesus,Allah or any otherdeity. People are toldthat they are inherentlybad or

sinfulandthattheonlywaytobecomegoodisbygivingovercontroloftheir

livestofaith.Asthereisnoevidencethatanyofthatistrue,religion,ineffect,is

creatinganimaginaryproblemsimplysothatitcansellanimaginarysolution.

Thelearnedhelplessnesscreatedbyreligioncanopenthewayforcharlatans

andconartiststotakeadvantageofgullible,vulnerablepeople.Falseideasabout

theuniverse,includingpromisesthatgoodpeoplearerewardedandsinfulpeople

punished,cansetfalseexpectationsamongbelieversandstripthemofthetools

theyneedtoproperlycopewiththechallengingeventsoftheirlivesinahealthy

way.

It’softenbettertofacerealityhead-onandattemptto cope with it directly

ratherthancomfortoneselfwithdeception.AsBertrandRusselloncesaid,“No

satisfactionbaseduponself-deceptionissolid,and,howeverunpleasantthetruth

maybe,itisbettertofaceitonceforall,togetusedtoit,andtoproceedtobuild

yourlifeinaccordancewithit.”

WeAreFreetoCreateOurOwnMeaning

Part of the beauty and wonder of being alive is the opportunity to make your

own choices and create your own meaning. Instead of having a predetermined

“destiny”orsomepowerfulguidinghandcallingtheshotsinyourlife,youare

free to seek your own meaning and value by making your own choices and

discoveringyourownuniquepath.

Thereisnosingleoutsideforceimposingmeaningontheeventsofyourlife.

Thereisnoevidencewhatsoeverthatpeople’slifeeventsconformtosomesort

ofdivineplanorpredestination.Lifeis,objectively,meaningless;giventhesize

andscopeoftheuniverseandourtinyrolewithinit,it’sabsurdtothinkthatwe

mighthaveanysortofcosmicallyvitalrole.

The lack of external meaning to our lives can grant us a pleasant sense of

freedom.Ratherthanbeingtetheredbyanoutsideforce,wearefreetoexplore

theuniverse,seekanswerstoprofoundquestionsorenjoysimplepleasures,like

sex and food. We have the ability to create meaning for our lives by setting

worthwhilegoals,workingtoimprovethelivesofthosearoundus,enjoyingour

timeonearth,makingconnectionstootherhumansandlovingourfamilies.All

of these activities are worthwhile, and none of them require the existence of

God.

Chapter16:“SomanypeoplediedforGod/religion.

Surely,itmustbereal.”

The study of world religions yields a bloody history. Holy wars have been

foughtbetweendifferentfactionsofbelievers,martyrshavewillinglygivenup

their lives for their religious beliefs, people have been sacrificed to appease

angrygodsandvictimshavebeentorturedandkilledinthenameofreligion.

Thishistorysaysmoreabouttheviolentandhurtfulaspectsofhumannature

thanitdoesabouttheexistenceofGod.Thefactisthatcertainpeoplearealways

willing to sacrifice themselves for something they believe in, regardless of

whether those beliefs are religious in nature or not. Dying in the name of a

religion is tragic and lamentable, but it does not prove that such actions are

justifiedbythewillofanexistingdeity.

PeopleWillDieforWhatTheyBelieveIn

Peoplehavefrequentlybeenwillingtorisktheirlivesforpolitical,religiousor

cultural reasons through actions like hunger strikes, self-immolation, violent

protestsandmore.Butlogically,whywouldanyonechoosetodieorwelcome

death for reasons such as these? Many of these worldviews rely on belief

systemsthatpromoteself-sacrificeasamethodtranscendingdeathorawayto

findgreaterpurpose.Theseworldviewsaresometimesreligious,liketheideaof

anafterlifethatrendersmortalsufferingirrelevant,ortheymaybesecular,like

thebeliefthatone’sactionscanleavebehindanimmortallegacybyparticipating

inasocialcause.Onetheoryoffersanexplanationforthiscommonpracticeof

assigning a greater meaning or notion of non-permanence to death: terror

management theory (1). Essentially, the theory states that because humans are

uniquelyawareoftheirmortality, they createcopingmechanismstoovercome

the anxiety associated with it. Otherwise, people could live in constant,

paralyzing fear of death. Therefore, humans create cultural worldviews that

allow them to feel transcendent or believe that they are part of something

immortal.Thekeyinthisinstanceofapersonwelcomingdeathforaparticular

cause is that the person feels as though he is part of something greater than

himselfandthathisdeathwillresultinaneternityofimmortalafterlife.

Thismightexplainsuicidecults,whereotherwiserationalpeoplearewilling

to commit mass suicide. In 1997, 39 people in the Heaven’s Gate community

diedbelievingthatdoingsowouldenablethemtoboardaUFOthatwouldsave

them from an imminent apocalypse (2). In the 1970s, Jim Jones pronounced

himselfamessiahandledmorethan900peopletokillthemselves(3).Thatso

manypeoplediedthroughparticipationinthesecultsclearlydoesnotmeanthat

the claims of their founders were true. It could simply mean that these people

were manipulated into feeling that they were part of something greater than

themselvesandthattheirdeathscouldbeespeciallymeaningfulinthecontextof

thatbeliefsystem.

TheRealityofHolyWars

Thetendency of humans to be attracted to martyrdom can be easily exploited,

andthisisclearlyafactorinmanyofthereligiousconflictsthroughouthistory.

Warisacomplexissue,andwarsarerarelyeverfoughtforjustonereason.Even

so-calledholywarscanhavenon-religiousmotivations,likerevenge,politicsor

obtaining resources from neighboring communities. Yet religion plays a vital

roleintherecruitmentandmotivationprocess(4).Itisfareasiertorecruittroops

willing to die for a cause if that cause seems particularly transcendent. People

mightbeunwillingtorisktheirlivesforcommercialsuccess,buttheymightbe

more willing if they believe they are promoting an ideology or acting on a

deity’swill.Itisalsolikelyeasiertoconvincesomeonetodieforacauseifthey

believe that their earthly death is only the beginning of a blissful and eternal

afterlife.Afterall,dyingisn’tsuchabigdealifyou’renotreallydying.

Inaconflictbetweentworeligions,atleastonesidewouldnecessarilyhave

to be wrong; they could not both be right, as each individual religious belief

systemisunique.Sincefatalitiesexistonallsidesofeveryconflict–thereisno

indication that a deity is overseeing these battles or choosing sides. People of

manydifferentreligionshavediedfortheirreligiousbeliefs.Martyrscomefrom

Christianity,Islam,Hinduismandother religiousbackgrounds,andallofthem

believe that theirs is the right cause. They can’t all be right. At least some

martyrsmusthavediedinvain.Mollifiedbyabeliefinanafterlifeorsomesort

of cosmic reward, people are willing to waste or sacrifice their lives. With no

evidenceforanafterlife,weshouldrecognizethetruevalueofourcurrentlives

as our one and only shot at happiness. Wasting it on unfounded claims and

ancientmythsisanabsolutetragedy.

Sources:

1) Routledge, Clay. “Understanding Self-Sacrifice: Suicide as Self-

Transcendence.”PsychologyToday.January19,2011.AccessedSeptember21,

2014.

2)Zennie,Michael.“NewAgeFollowersStillWaitingforAlienstoBeamThem

up 15 Years after Heaven's Gate Cult Suicides Left 39 People Dead.” Mail

Online.March26,2012.AccessedSeptember21,2014.

3)Hall,JohnR.“TheApocalypseatJonestown(withAfterword).”Ingodswe

trust(1981):269.

4) “Suicide Terrorist Database - Flinders University-Australia.” Terrorism

Research&AnalysisConsortium.

Chapter17:“Atheismhaskilledmorepeoplethan

religion,soitmustbewrong!”

Facedwiththeviolencecondonedandencouragedbyorganizedreligion,some

believersareeagertopointoutthatatheistsareequallyviolent,ifnotmore.In

fact, some suggest that atheism is at the root of the worst atrocities in recent

history,liketheregimeofJosephStalinorMaoZedong.Thisideagoeshandin

handwiththeargumentdiscussedinChapter4:thatmoralitystemsfromGod,so

anatheisticgovernmentmustbeimmoral.

While it’s true that Stalin and Mao were corrupt leaders who denounced

religion among their people, suggesting that their depravity was caused by

atheismorthattheirbehaviorwasatallindicativeofatheismasawholesimply

does not follow. Similarly, the idea that atheism is somehow uniquely

responsiblefordespotismisclearlyfalse.Historyisfilledwithexamplesofthe

religious whose beliefs were directly responsible for murder and violence (1).

Yetsuchdirectrelationshiphasnotbeenseenwithseculartyrants.Ifanything,

non-religious dictators themselves act more like religious zealots, elevating

themselvesasdeitiesinthecultofpersonalitythey’vedeveloped.

AtheismHasNoDoctrines

The violence within Christianity or Islam can often be traced back to the

teachings of those religions because it is embedded in the ideology of the

religionsthemselves(2).EventhoughwarandviolenceinthenameofGodare

oftenmotivatedbynon-religiousambitions,suchaspoliticalandterritorialgain,

religions in such cases are often used as an excuse for justifying such acts,

disguisingtheirintentionsasholyandrecruitingarmiesofpeoplewhowouldnot

have been willing to risk their lives for purely secular causes (3). People

throughout history have been martyred and sacrificed in the name of religion,

andholywarshavebeenfoughtoverthetenetsofthosereligions.

Thesamecannotbesaidofatheismforthesimplefactthatatheismisnota

religion. Atheism is a lack of belief in deities. It has no governing dogmatic

principles,norulebookandnocoreideology.Comparingatheismtoreligionis

like comparing apples and oranges. It’s more helpful to compare atheism to

theism, which is simply belief in a deity. While some theists also hold

fundamentalistbeliefs,justbelievingthatsomegodexistsisnotenoughtocause

warsandviolencebasedonthebeliefalone.Howmanywarshavebeencaused

bydeism?You’dneedsomeadditionaldogmaticbeliefsinorderforthathappen.

No one commits mass murder in the name of theism or atheism alone.

Additionaldogmaticprinciplesareneededtojustifysuchgrislyoutcomes.Inthe

case of theism, religions like Christianity and Islam provide such dogma,

creatingconvenientexcuses.Seculartotalitarianregimesandreligionsharethis

dogmaticelement:abeliefthatasetofideasaretruebecauseanauthorityfigure

says so and that questioning those ideas can lead to serious or even deadly

consequences.

Therefore, it’s not reasonable to say that atheism condones or promotes

violenceorthattyrantshavekilledinthenameofatheism.Suchactionsorany

otheraction,bothgoodandbad,donotandcannotspeakforatheismingeneral,

asnotwoatheistsnecessarilyholdanyofthesamebeliefsorconvictionsabout

theworld.Theonlythingheldincommonbetweenallatheistsisalackofbelief

indeities.

This means that some atheists are undoubtedly unkind, aggressive and

violent. It also means that some atheists are kind, friendly and peaceful. Any

typeofpersoncanbeanatheist,justasanytypeofpersoncanbenotinterested

in golf. Just because some non-golfers are jerks doesn’t make not golfing bad

anymorethanatheismcanbeblamedforthebehaviorofahandfulofatheists.If

you’re trying to make a decision about whether you believe in God based on

howa certain non-believer you know acts, you’re using flawed reasoning. For

the same reason, not all religious people are bad or cruel individuals, yet the

practiceofviolenceandwarisdeeplyimbeddedinmanyreligiousideologies.It

is,therefore,besttoexamineyourviewsaboutGodorotherreligiousbeliefsby

evaluatingtheevidenceprovidedforsuchclaims,notbasedonthebehaviorof

peoplewhodoordonotacceptitastruth.

TheCultofPersonality

It’struethatthetyrannicalcommunistregimesofMaoandStalinwereopposed

toreligion,withreligiousbeliefdiscouragedandpunishedundertheirrule.This

had less to do with atheism and more to do with the threat of religion as

competition with their own tyrannical plans. Totalitarian regimes are built on

dogma and fear, not freedom of speech and inquiry. In this way, they greatly

resemble religion. In effect, these leaders essentially created religions and

insertedthemselvesatthetopasnewdeities.AsSamHarrisputit,“Theproblem

with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of

religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions.” These cults of

personality are not derived from atheism, and it is hard to see how one could

arguethattheiractivitieswererepresentativeofatheistsasawhole.Indeed,many

free,irreligiousnations,suchasDenmarkandSweden(4),areamongthemost

peacefulandprosperouscountriesintheworld(5).Thepoint,however,isnotto

say that atheism necessarily causes people to be happier or more prosperous.

What is clear, however, is that atheism does not lead to violence, tyranny or

genocideanymorethanreligiosityguaranteesapeacefulandprosperousnation.

The world’s religions have rules and holy books that tell their followers

what’s wrong or right and how to behave. Thus, it is reasonable to hold a

religionaccountableforthemessagethatitpreaches.Therearenoholyatheist

scriptures,noatheistpopeandnoatheistrituals,tenets,creeds,codeorauthority.

Atheismcannotbeheldaccountablefortheactivitiesofatheistsinthesameway

thatreligioncanbejudgedbyitsdoctrinebecauseatheismhasnodoctrines.

Sources:

1) Hitchens, Christopher. God is not great: How religion poisons everything.

RandomHouseLLC,2008.

2) Ellens, J. Harold. The Destructive Power of Religion: Violence in Judaism,

Christianity,andIslam.Westport,Conn.:Praeger,2003.

3) Juergensmeyer, Mark. Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of

ReligiousViolence.Vol.13.UnivofCaliforniaPress,2003.

4) Zuckerman, Phil. “Atheism: Contemporary Numbers and Patterns.” In The

Cambridge Companion to Atheism (Cambridge Companions to Philosophy).

NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,2007.

5)StateofGlobalWellBeing.Gallup,2013.

Chapter18:“You’llbecomeabelieverwhenyouare

desperateforGod’shelp.”

According to the conventional wisdom of many believers, atheists frequently

findthemselvespulledtowardGodduringtimesofstress,andthey’vecomeup

withcleveraphorismstodescribethephenomenon,like“therearenoatheistsin

foxholes”or“onlyanatheistuntiltheplanestarttofall”.Theideabehindthisis

that it’s easy to be an atheist when your life is going well, but once you

experiencehardtimes,you’llbelieveinGodoratleasthopethatheisreal.

Whilethisclaimmaybetrueforsomepeople,it’scertainlynotauniversal

truth among atheists. Moreover, the existence of “deathbed conversions” and

similarexperiencesdoesnotprovetheexistenceofGod.Theyonlysuggestthat

people are at their most irrational when frightened, in pain or delirious.The

intensefearofdeathmaydrivesometoacceptillogicalorirrationalviewsoutof

desperationforcomfortorawaytorelieveorlessentheirintenseanxiety.We’re

allhumanandexperiencethesamebasicemotions,sothisdesireforcomfortis

certainly understandable. Then, it’s not that someone is desperate for God;

they’redesperateforsomekindofcomfortandemotionalrelief.

The idea that fear could drive you toward the belief in God only goes to

suggestthatreligiousclaimsarecommonlyfear-basedandnotrootedinactual

logic or evidence. Unintentionally, theists are essentially acknowledging that

theirclaimsareirrational.

AreThereReallyNoAtheistsinFoxholes?

Many atheists lost their faith in God through reasonable discourse and careful

consideration.Suchviewsareunlikelytochangeonawhim.Anatheistsuddenly

believing in God is like a grown man suddenly believing in Santa Claus. For

many atheists, the only thing that could genuinely cause them to change their

mindsisrealevidenceforGod’sexistence,nottheemotionalturmoilofstress,

deathandtragedy.

Seven years after astronomer and science popularizer Carl Sagan died, his

wife,AnnDruyan,saidthisaboutherhusband:

“Whenmyhusbanddied,becausehewassofamousandknownfornot

beingabeliever,manypeoplewouldcomeuptomeandaskmeifCarl

changed at the end and converted to a belief in an afterlife. They also

frequentlyaskmeifIthinkIwillseehimagain.Carlfacedhisdeathwith

unflagging courage and never sought refuge in illusions. The tragedy

was that we knew we would never see each other again. I don't ever

expecttobereunitedwithCarl.But,thegreatthingisthatwhenwewere

together, for nearly twenty years, we lived with a vivid appreciation of

howbriefandpreciouslifeis.Wenevertrivializedthemeaningofdeath

by pretending it was anything other than a final parting. Every single

moment that we were alive and we were together was miraculous-not

miraculous in the sense of inexplicable or supernatural... The way he

treatedmeandthewayItreatedhim,thewaywetookcareofeachother

andourfamily,whilehelived.Thatissomuchmoreimportantthanthe

ideaIwillseehimsomeday.Idon'tthinkI'lleverseeCarlagain.ButI

saw him. We saw each other. We found each other in the cosmos, and

thatwaswonderful.”(1)

Priortohisdeath,journalistandliterarycriticChristopherHitchensstatedin

an interview with Anderson Cooper on CNN that if he had any deathbed

conversion,itwouldbetheproductofdelirium.Heacknowledgedthathisbrain

mayacterraticallyandoutsideofhiscontrolinhisfinalhoursbutwasconfident

thatanyactionsittookwouldnotrepresentwhohereallywas:

Cooper:Inamomentofdoubt,isn’tthere?...Ijustfinditfascinatingthat

even when you’re alone and no one else is watching, there might be a

momentwhenyouwanttohedgeyourbets.

Hitchens: If that comes, it will be when I’m very ill, when I’m half

dementedeitherbydrugsorbypainandIwon’thavecontroloverwhatI

say.Imentionthisincaseyoueverheararumorlateron—becausethese

thingshappen,andthefaithfullovetospreadtheserumors.Well,Ican’t

say that the entity that by then wouldn’t be me wouldn’t do such a

pathetic thing, but I can tell you that not while I’m lucid, no. I can be

quitesureofthat.

Cooper:Soifthere’ssomestorythatonyourdeathbed...

Hitchens:Don’tbelieveit.Don’tcreditit.(2)

Evolutionary biologist and atheist activist Richard Dawkins said in an

interviewwithBillMaher:

“WhenI'monmydeathbed,I'mgoingtohaveataperecorderswitched

on.Becausepeoplelikemearethevictimsofmaliciousstoriesaftertheir

death,peoplesayingtheyhadadeathbedconversionwhentheydidn't.”

(3)

ADyingBrainCannotBeTrusted

Facedwithextremestress,pain,lossofblood,drugsandothersimilarfactors,

thebrainsometimesactsdifferentlythanitnormallywould.Somepatientscome

outofsurgicalanesthesiafeelingextremedelirium,believing,forexample,that

theirdoctorsareconspiringtokillthemorsimplyseeingthingsthataren’tthere

(4). That some of these hallucinations could be religious in nature is hardly

surprising. Religious myths are widespread, and many people are exposed to

religion from a young age. Such fables can easily resurface from the

subconsciousmindregardlessoftheperson’sconscious,rationalbeliefs.

Theistsliketopointtotheglobalprevalenceofreligiousbeliefasproofthat

thereisaglobaldesiretobelieveinGod.Therealityismorecomplex.Cultural

indoctrination certainly plays a role. So does the nature of the human brain,

whichfindspatternsinrandomnoiseandsearchesforexplanationsbyassigning

agency to events that are not caused by any agents (5). Humans have a lot of

naturalimpulsesandtendencies,butthatdoesn’tmeanweneedtoembracethem

all. It should come as no surprise that human brains frequently act similarly.

Thatwemighthavesomedesiretoappealtoahigherdeitysayslessaboutthe

realityofagodthanitdoesaboutthewayourbrainsarewiredandournaturally

humandesiretounderstandthe universe, regardlessofwhethersuchperceived

understandingisbasedonverifiableevidenceorancientdogma.

BeliefDoesNotInfluenceReality

Aswe’vediscussedtimeandagainthroughoutthisbook,believinginsomething

doesnotmakeittrue.Justbecausesomeonemayormaynotchangehermind

about God does not make religious claims any more likely. Insisting that an

atheistwillconvertonherdeathbedorstatingthataperson’sviewswillcrumble

intimesofcrisisisbothpatronizingandirrelevant.

Thereisnoshameinstrangedeathbedexperiencesortemporaryreversions

intimesofcrisis.Peopledonothaveanycontroloverwhattheirbrainsdowhen

underastateofduress,andit’shardlyrepresentativeoftheirviewsiftheydoor

saystrangethingswhenfacedwithdeath,illnessortragedy.Usingthebehavior

of a person made vulnerable by tragedy as an excuse to promote a religious

agendaisutterlyreprehensible.

Sources:

1)Druyan,Ann.“AnnDruyanTalksAboutScience,Religion,Wonder,Awe...

andCarlSagan.”SkepticalInquirer27,no.6(2003):25-30.

2) Christopher Hitchens. “Author Hitchens Talks Cancer and God.” CNN.

August5,2010.AccessedSeptember25,2014.

3)RichardDawkins.“RealTimewithBillMaher.”NewYork,NY:HBO.April

11,2008.

4) Dobson, Roger. “How Having an Operation Can Send You Delirious:

TerrifyingPost-surgeryHallucinationsStrikeuptoHalfoftheOver-65s.”Mail

Online.September10,2012.AccessedSeptember25,2014.

5) Shermer, Michael. The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics

and Conspiracies – How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths.

St.Martin'sGriffin,2012.

Chapter19:“Smartpeopleandrenownedscientists

likeX,YandZbelieveinGod,soitmustbetrue.”

Some theists will use this line of defense when questioned about their beliefs:

“Person X is very intelligent, and he believes in God. Who am I to say he’s

wrong?” It’s a natural inclination for people to accept the views of people in

authority. From a young age, we are conditioned to respond to authority. We

learnthatourparentsknowbetterthanwedoandthatweshoulddowhatthey

say. When we enter school, we learn to listen to our teachers. Our society

functions in large part because we rely on people in authority to be

knowledgeable(1).

Toanextent,thisrelianceonauthorityisnecessary.Afterall,teachersand

parentsgenerallydoknowbetterthanthechildrenintheircare.Lawandorder

canonlybemaintainedifcitizensrespecttheauthorityofthepolice.However,

thenaturaltendencytobelievewhatwe’retoldcanleadtointellectuallaziness,

with people not bothering to think critically about their lives and examine

whetherclaimsandideasareactuallytrue.

Experts are not always right. Even very smart people can be wrong.

Likewise,smart people can be wrong about God. A person’s intelligence does

not cause her to be right; an intelligent person who fails to recognize material

evidencecanstillholdthewrongopinion.

SmartPeopleCanBeWrong

It’samistaketoconfuseintelligencewithknowledge.Intelligencerelatestothe

wayoneprocessesinformation,notnecessarilywhatsheknowsorbelieves.This

can lead to an individual making complex justifications to defend her beliefs,

evenwhenthosebeliefsareclearlyfalse.Forexample,SirArthurConanDoyle,

physician and the author of the famous Sherlock Holmes stories, believed in

fairies (1).As science historian Michael Shermer notes, “Smart people believe

weirdthingsbecausetheyarebetteratrationalizingtheirbeliefsthattheyhold

fornon-smartreasons.”

TheAppealtoAuthority

Anappealtoauthorityisalogicalfallacythatusuallytakesthefollowingform:

PersonAisanexpertinZ.

PersonAsaidXaboutZ.

Therefore,Xmustbetrue.

ThisisafallacybecausepersonA’sopinionormisinformedconclusiondoes

not actually affect the truth, and experts are not always right (2). An expert’s

opinion or interpretation is frequently closer to the truth than other people’s

opinions, because she is well educated on a topic. That view, however, is not

automatically correct simply because one is an expert about something, and

beinganexpertdoesnotmakeone’sopinionsorconclusionsautomaticallymore

valid.Expertscanandoftendomakemistakes.

Simplystated,afactisn’ttruebecausesomeonesaiditwas.Validscientific

findings are accepted as most likely true because they can be independently

tested and validated. Scientific authority stretches only so far as the scientist’s

abilitytoaccuratelyreportontheresultsofsuchtesting.Therefore,acceptinga

claimonlybecauseanexpertmadeitandignoringevidencetosupportorrefute

theclaimfliesinthefaceofthescientificmethod.

Pointingoutthislogicalfallacyshouldnotbeusedtodismissexpertopinions

or conclusions out of hand. It should, however, be kept in mind any time a

claim’sveracityrestssolelyontheauthorityofthepersonmakingit.Ifanexpert

hasnoevidencetosupportherclaimorifherclaimcannotbereproducedand

tested,herviewishardlymorereliablethanthatofanybodyelse.

Atheism,EducationandIntelligence

Beliefisnotmerelyamatterofintelligence.It’sanissueofwhatinformationa

person has available and how she processes that information. Atheism often

comesdowntoasking the right questions or spottingtheproblemsin belief; a

person who has not been exposed to those doubts or who has never had an

occasion to question those beliefs might never consider atheism, regardless of

her intelligence. Similarly, belief in a deity does not automatically make

someonestupid.

To be sure, a number of highly intelligent people throughout history have

believed in God. Yet some data seem to suggest a strong positive correlation

betweenintelligenceandatheism(3).Thereasonsforthisarecomplexandtied

inparttothesocioeconomictrendsandnotnecessarilyadirectcauseofhigher

intelligence.Nevertheless,it’snotdifficulttoimaginethatmanyatheistsarrived

attheirpositionthroughskepticismandcriticalthought,skillswhichdorequire

somelevelofintelligence.Criticallyexaminingtheclaimsofreligionsallowsa

persontoseethroughthem,recognizingthefallaciestheycontain.Thismightbe

why atheism is much more common among scientists as among non-scientists

(4).Such data do not support or negate the existence of a deity. Yet they do

refuteargumentsclaimingtheprevalenceoftheisticviewsamongintellectualsas

awayofsupportingabeliefinGod.

Ultimately, the level of intelligence shown by believers and non-believers

haslittletodowiththerealityofGod’sexistence.Ifitdid,thentheexistenceof

intelligent atheists would be equally as compelling as the claims of intelligent

theists. Both views cannot be right. Without evidence, there is no reason to

believetheclaimsofanyindividual,regardlessoftheirexpertise,intelligenceor

levelofeducation.

Sources:

1) Cialdini, Robert B. “Authority.” Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion.

Rev. Ed. ; 1st ed. New York: Harper Business, 2006.2) Moosa, Tauriq. “The

Dangers of Being Smart.” Big Think. June 13, 2012. Accessed September 26,

2014.

2) Bennett, Bo. “Appeal to Authority.” In Logically Fallacious: The Ultimate

Collectionofover300LogicalFallacies.EBookIt.com,2012.

3) Lynn, Richard, John Harvey, and Helmuth Nyborg. “Average intelligence

predictsatheismratesacross137nations.”Intelligence37,no.1(2009):11-15.

4)Masci,David.“ScientistsandBelief.”PewResearchCentersReligionPublic

LifeProject.November5,2009.AccessedSeptember26,2014.

Chapter20:“Howcanwereallyknowanything?”

Extreme skepticism is a form of philosophical skepticism that considers it

impossibletobelieveanything(1).Whereatheistsclaimthatwehavenotproved

thatGodexists,anextremeskepticwouldsay,“Wecannotprovethatanything

exists.”SomewouldtakethistoimplythatGod'sexistenceandnon-existenceare

equallylikely.

At its mildest, extreme skepticism raises the question of whether any

particularviewcanbeprovenorconsideredobjectivelycorrect.Initsstrongest

form, such skepticismcan lead to a total rejection of the physical world. As a

philosophical quandary, skepticism of this kind has existed for thousands of

years(1).

HowCanWeKnowAnything?

Beforeshowingwhythisargumentcannotbeusedtocounteratheism,ithelpsto

understand exactly what is meant by skepticism in this sense. The reason that

someclaimthattrueknowledgeisimpossibleisbecausewearelimitedbyour

senses and experiences, which are ultimately subjective. We perceive reality

through our senses and think about it with our brains, and it’s impossible to

knowforsurewhetherthesesensesareactuallytrustworthy.

For example, consider the color blue. We understand scientifically that the

coloriscausedbyaspecificwavelengthoflightbouncingoffofanobject,and

we can measure the length of waves to determine whether a color can be

classifiedasblue.Wecannot,however,saywithabsolutecertaintythatthecolor

weperceiveasblueactuallylooksthesametoanyoneelse.Becausewecannot

see through other people’s eyes, we can’t know for sure how colors look to

them.

Indeed,it’spossiblethatwedonotevenreallyexistandthatthereisnosuch

thing as reality. We could all be brains in vats, hooked up to a computer

simulation, like in the famous movie The Matrix; everything you know and

experiencemaybealie.Asthelogicofthisargumentgoes,wehavenowayof

knowing whether we’re actually brains in vats; therefore, we have no way of

knowinganythingelseaboutourworld.Sincethisclaimisinnowaytestable,

however,wehaveno wayofprovingitandnoreason tobelievethatit’strue.

Wecanonlyliveintherealitywecanobserve,notahypotheticalrealitythatwe

havenowayofproving.Todootherwisewouldbeinsane.

Forexample, imagine that someone tells you that thereis a monster living

beneathyourbed.Youcanneverknowthathe’sthere,however,becauseheis

invisible,makesnonoiseandleavesnotraceofhisexistence.Sincethereisno

wayofprovingthatsuchamonsterexistsandsinceitsexistenceisveryunlikely

giventhatitcontradictsmanyhighlypredictivescientificmodelsexplainingour

universe,thereissimplynoreasontoactasthoughthere’samonsterunderyour

bed.Sincesuchanunfalsifiablemonsterisindistinguishablefromamonsterthat

doesn’texist,itismostpracticaltosimplyliveasthoughthereisnomonster.

Are you currently awake, or is this a dream? Maybe you are still in bed.

Maybewhenyouwakeup,you’llrememberthatyouarenotevenwhoyouthink

youareatthismomentinyourdream.Youmighthaveadifferentname,gender

or race. You might not even be human. Or you might be just a character in

someone else’s dream or an advanced computer game. And once whoever is

dreamingthisdreamwakesuporturnsoffthegamingconsole,youwouldcease

toexist. You can’t prove any of this isnot true, but wouldit be reasonable to

makeanydecisionsbasedontheseortheunlimitednumberofotherunfalsifiable

claims?

We do not require absolute certainty about our world. We can act on the

informationavailabletous,makingthe best choice possiblewithwhatwecan

knowwithsomebutnotanabsolutelevelofcertainty.Suchlevelsofcertainty

aresufficientforustoactupon.Sciencedoesn’tclaimtohaveabsolutecertainty

abouttheworld;itcreatesmodelsthatprovidethebestexplanationbasedonthe

availableevidence.If additional evidence is found, the modelcan be changed.

Religiousclaimsshouldstanduptothesamescrutinyasscientificones;claims

shouldbetestable,repeatableandfalsifiable.Ifthereisnowaytotestwhethera

claimistrue,thereisnoreasontoliveasthoughitis.

BeliefsCanBeJustified

Wehavenochoicebuttoliveinrealityandobeythelawsthatgovernitasthey

are perceived. Even if our reality were only a simulation, it’s the only option

available to us, and so we base our beliefs about the world on what we can

observe.Wedon’twaituntilwehaveabsolutecertaintybeforeacting;wemake

decisions about our world based upon what our experiences can tell us of the

lawsofouruniverse.

CarlSaganoncesaid,“Extraordinaryclaimsrequireextraordinaryevidence.”

If you make a claim that does not contradict our current understanding of the

universe,somebasiclevelofdatawouldbesufficienttosupportit.Forexample,

ifyouclaimthatthesunwillrisearound6a.m.tomorrow,Icouldbeinclinedto

believeyou.Dependingonthetimeofyearandgeographicallocation,Icould

determinewhetheryourclaimisconsistentwithwhatIcouldexpect.If,however,

you tell me that the sun will not rise tomorrowand will instead be eaten by a

giant wolf in the sky, I’ll need significantly more evidence. Everything I can

observe about reality suggests that this is incredibly unlikely, as it disregards

manyapparentlawsoftheuniverse.BeforeIcouldacceptsuchanextraordinary

claim, I would need some very compelling evidence. Otherwise, it would be

muchmorelikelytoassumethatyouwereinsaneorsimplylying.

Sayingthatwecan’treallyknowwhetherGodexistsdoesnothingtoprove

thatitdoes.Notbeingabletoknowsomethingforcertaindoesnotincreasethe

oddsofitbeingtrue.Unlikeextremeformsofskepticism,scientificskepticism

evaluatesthelikelihoodofaclaimbythestrengthoftheevidencesupportingit.

Using such methods, we can assess the likelihood of claims. Unfalsifiable

claims,suchasGod,SantaClausorleprechauns,arenotaslikelyasclaimswith

strong testable, verifiable and repeatable evidence (2). Time and again, the

scientificmethodhas,moreconsistentlythananyothermethod,beensuccessful

atprovidingexplanationswithveryaccuratepredictivepowerforouruniverse.

Thiscaneasilybeseeninthesuccessoftechnologicaladvancementsinthepast

centuryandhasjustifiedbeliefinthestabilityofnaturallaws.

IRejectYourRealityandSubstituteMyOwn

On the TV show Mythbusters, Adam Savage famously quipped, “I reject your

realityandsubstitutemyown”(3).Hewasjoking,butthesentimentisonethat

canbeeasilyappliedtopeoplewhosubscribetothesortofextremeskepticism

described throughout this chapter: if we cannot truly know anything, then

anythingcouldbetrue.

While there may be merit in discussing such ideas from a philosophical

standpoint,itdoesn’tholdwaterasanargumentfortheexistenceofGod.Ifwe

acceptthisargumentastrue,thenwealsocannotbecertainthatthisargumentis

correct,ascertaintywouldrefutetheverybasisoftheargument.

Allofthisphilosophizingisreallyjustadistractionfromthefactthattheists

cannotprovetheexistenceoftheirgod.Itisnottheburdenofatheiststodefend

theirlackofbelief,andatheistsdonotneedtohavealloftheanswersaboutthe

worldinordertolackbeliefinadeity.Theists,byclaimingthatGodexists,are

making an extraordinary claim. This requires extraordinary evidence. As seen

throughout this book, that evidence does not exist. No argument laid out by

theistssofariscompellinglybelievable.

Sources:

1) Dancy, Jonathan, Ernest Sosa, and Matthias Steup, eds. A Companion to

Epistemology.2nded.Wiley-Blackwell,2010.

2)Kurtz,Paul.TheNewSkepticism.PrometheusBooks,1992.

3) Savage, Adam. “Explosive Decompression/Frog Giggin'/Rear Axle.”

MythBusters.DiscoveryChannel.11Jan.2004.

InPursuitofGod

WhyThereIsNoGodwaswrittenbyArminNavabi.AformerMuslim,Arminis

the founder of Atheist Republic, a growing community with more than one

millionfollowersworldwidewhereatheistscansharetheirviewsandengagein

debatesanddiscussionwithotheratheistsandalsobelievers.AsaMuslimand

laterasanatheist,ArminfoundcontemplatingtheideaofGodandtheeffectsof

thisconcepttobeanintegralpartofhislife.HisstruggletofindGodandapath

intohisgracealmostcosthimhislife.ThefollowingsegmentisArmin’sstory

as described by his friend and fellow member of the Atheist Republic team,

MohammadSavage.

AnOpeningMind

ArminwasbornandraisedintheIslamicRepublicofIran.Hewasindoctrinated

quitethoroughlysince earlychildhoodintheMuslimtradition.Hewouldpray

regularlyfivetimesaday,asallMuslimsaremandatedto.Growingup,hewas

afraidofallthethingswhichgoodMuslimsaresupposedtobeafraidof:hell,

sin,thedevil,etc.Theonlythingwhichterrifiedhimmorethanthethoughtof

hisowneverlastingtormentwasthepossibilityofhisparentsbeingsenttohell.

To his young mind, this was a very real possibility since they didn’t pray

regularlyfivetimesaday,ashedid.

Duringhisformativeyears,ArminattendedMuslimclasses.Insuchclasses,

helearnedthataccordingtohisIslamicteachers,ifaboyweretoperishpriorto

the age of 15, access to heaven would be guaranteed, regardless of any other

extenuating circumstances. The same rule also applied to girls; however, for

them,thecutoffageis9.ThisthoughtstuckwithArmin,anddrivenbythefear

instilledinhimbyhisreligion,itbegantoconsumehim.

Inhisyoungmind,thereitwas:asurefire,absolutemethodtogainaccessto

thatwhichmanyMuslimsstrivefortheirentirelives.Itconfoundedhimtono

endthatnoneofhispeersoreldershaddiscoveredortakenadvantageofsucha

wonderful and easy shortcut. He would not be one such sheep; he wouldn’t

allow the joys of a full life to pull the wool over his young eyes. His future

courseofactionbecamecrystalclear.Atage14,aftermakinguphismindand

stealinghisresolve,Arminlaunchedhimselffromoneofthehigherwindowsin

hisschool.

This was his attempt to end his life and guarantee his future ascendance.

Needlessto say, it didn’t work out quite as he had hoped. Armin survived his

suicideattemptbutwasravagedbyinjury.Amongtheinjurieshesufferedwere

abrokenwrist,twobrokenlegsandaninjuredback.Aftertheaccident,Armin

was confined to a wheelchair for the next seven months. Even after regaining

permission to ambulate further, he still required months before he was able to

travelwithsomesemblanceofindependence.

Wracked by more than the physical injuries of his failed suicide attempt,

Armin was torn apart by the effect his actions had on his parents. Seeing the

impact it had on them, Armin was no longer deluded by the temptation of an

easywaytoheaven,and so, he dedicatedhimselfevenmoresotohis religion

and finding a better path to God. He prayed more frequently, studied Islam in

detail,attemptedtolearnallhecouldtobeabetterMuslimandregularlybegged

hisparentstofollowsuit.Notadaypassedthathewouldn’trequesthismother

tojoinhiminhisdailyprayers.

While his newfound dedication and studies did lead him to become more

familiarwiththeintricaciesofhisreligion,italsoledtosomeratherunexpected

and quite unwelcome thoughts. For every question his studies answered about

hisreligiousbeliefs and the natureof God, tenmore popped up intheir stead,

leadingtoaseeminglyendlessandinconclusivesearch.Themorehestudied,the

morequestionshehadandthemoreconfusedhebecame.Hestartedtoquestion

God as well as God’s motives, and judgments. For example, why would a

benevolent God send people to hell simply because they picked the wrong

religion?

Suchnovelquestionsdidnotcomewithoutaprice.EverytimeArminfound

himselfquestioningGod,hefeltthecold,creepingfingersofguiltgriphisheart.

LedbyhisthirstforknowledgeandknowingthatseekingIslamicknowledgeis

encouragedinhisreligion,heconvincedhimselfthatstudyingthenatureofhis

Godcouldneverbeareprehensibleact.Emboldenedbyhisnewfoundsenseof

purpose, he set out to study and learn all he could about more religions,

includingsomedeadreligions.Hewasfueledwithcuriosityforwhy,according

toIslam,thesereligionsweresoevilthatalloftheirfollowersweredamnedto

eternalhellfireandbrimstone.Whatdidtheygetwrong?Whatweretheirmajor

errors? The more he studied, the more he learned and the more and more he

began to see the fallacies of all of these other religions, including his own.

Throughcountlesshoursspentstudying,researchingandpondering,hebeganto

see the greater possibility that religion could indeed have been a manmade

concept.

Havingbeentrainedtofearallofthethoughtshehadswimminginhishead,

Armin found himself tortured. His sleep was punctured by nightmares of the

gatesofhellopeningforhim.Hisdaysweredrowned in visions of devils and

demons out to punish him, making him pay for his insolence. As a practicing

Muslim, he was aware that what he was thinking was not only wrong, but

downrightevil.HewasawarethatGodcouldseeintohisthoughts.Hecouldfeel

thedisappointmentGodfeltinhim.Hewasdepressedbytheknowledgethathe

hadlethisbestfriend,hisprotectorandcreator,down.However,nomatterhow

horridhe felt, once thedoubts about religion beganto appear, they stuck. The

lingeringdoubtsregardinghiscreatorblossomed;theyinspiredfurtherresearch

andcontemplation.

Themorehebegantothinkofreligionasamanmadeconcept,notadivine

statute, the stronger his doubt became. No longer able to abide the growing

storm inside of him, Armin resolved to face the matter directly, disregard his

doubts and attempt to convince himself simply that God was real and that he

could be absolutely certain of this. He simply needed proof, actual, verifiable

proof,notthemythosofacenturies-oldnovel.Hebelievedoncehemanagedto

locatethisproof,hisfaithwouldbestrongerthanever.

Failingtofindproof,hesettledonanylogicalreasoningfortheexistenceof

God, including examining philosophical concepts and theories. However, once

allofthelogicalexplanationssupportingGodhadbeenthoroughlydebunked,he

grewdesperate.Heprayedharder,beggingGodtohelphim.Hewantedasign,a

message–anythingatalltoassurehimselfofadivinepresence.Ofcourse,his

prayers were never answered. All of this transpired during most of Armin’s

relativelyyounglife,andbytheageof 18, he had lost all of hisfaith.Hefelt

cheated,betrayedandtakenadvantageofbysociety,hiscountry,teachers,and

those who impose the belief in God as an absolute truth without any proof,

denying all other alternatives. He felt angry, depressed, and broken. He had

sacrificedsomuch,evenalmosthislife,allforthesakeofafairytale.

Ofcourse,asitsometimeshappenswhenleavingalifelongreligion,Armin

hadmomentsofdoubt.“PerhapsI’mmistaken.Perhapsthere’ssomethingreally

wrongwithme.Perhapsmyfallbrokemorethanmybones;perhapsitbrokemy

mind.AmIreallysoarroganttothinkthatI’vemanagedtodiscoversomething

that no one else around me has realized?” These were all common topics for

self-debate during this period of self-discovery. Armin was the only atheist he

knew.Beingtheproactivego-getterhehadalwaysbeen,hewishedtoletmore

peopleknowabouthislackofbeliefaswellastheamazingjourneywhichhad

ledtothisconclusion.

LifeinanIslamicstatewasbecomingexceedinglylonelyforanewlyformed

atheist.Heyearnedtosharehis experiencesandthoughtsandtooktoOrkut(a

pre-Facebooksocialnetworkingsite)tocreatewhatwouldbecomethespiritual

predecessortotheAtheistRepublic.Beyondhisinitialfears,hewasshockedand

pleasantlysurprisedtoseesomanypeoplejoinhiscommunityanddiscussthe

topicathand.Hewaselatedtofindotherslikehimself.Thecrazy notion of a

nonexistentGodcertainlydidn’tseemsocrazyanymore.

Arminwishedtoreachmorepeopleandtouchalargeraudience.Hesimply

wanted to find more atheists and discuss God and religion with any interested

parties,butaboveall,hewishedforpeopletobemadeawarethatatheismwasa

legitimateoption.Itwasoneofhislife’sgreatestexamplesofunfairnessthathe

wasn’tgivenachancetochoose.

Unsatisfied with the current reach and exposure, he started the Atheist

Republic in 2011. The main purpose of this community was to let everyone

knowaboutthemanypeoplewhodidn'tbelieveinGodandprovideaninvitation

forthemtoexploretheseideasiftheywereinterested.Healsowantedtocreatea

community for atheists. He wanted them to feel less lonely and ashamed. He

wanted them to know that not only are there others like us, but that there are

peopleouttherewillingtolisten,supportandguidethem.

FurtherDebatesandDiscussions

Thefocus of thisbook is on the concept of God, notspecific religions. Inmy

twoupcomingbooks, Iwilldiscussthe specificsofIslamand Christianityand

revealthemainproblemswiththeteachingsofthesetwoworldreligions.Ifyou

leave an honest review for Why There Is No God on Amazon or Goodreads,

we’ll send you a pre-released copy of either of these books absolutely free as

soonastheybecomeavailable.Simplysendusalinktothereviewbyvisiting

AtheistBookReview.com,andwe’llsendyouafreecopyofeitherbookassoon

as it's ready. Your reviews will help us reach out to more people who might

benefitfromthistextandfuturematerial.

Whilethisbookwasmeanttobeconcise,thereismuchmorethatcanbesaid

about the topics included in each chapter. If you’d like to further discuss any

topic with me directly, you can schedule an online video or audio discussion

withmeatWhyThereIsNoGod.com.Whileyou’rethere,Ialsoinviteyoutosign

upfortheAtheistRepublicnewsletterforuniqueinsightsandstoriesfromthe

AtheistRepubliccommunity.Forfeedback,suggestionsoranyother inquiries,

feelfreetocontactmeatArminNavabi.com..

ArminkissingtheQuranonthefirstdayoftheschoolyearatage11or12.