So in my last post, I mentioned that while I consider myself an atheist (or anti-theist), I do not hold any contempt for the principles of deism. This is simply because the idea behind deism is that there was a first cause, or creator, of the universe but that such an entity does not intervene with human affairs. Some deists could argue that such an entity does not even know, and probably does not care, about the existence of the human species on a tiny rock of a planet in a relatively tiny galaxy. The position of deism can be taken as a means of explaining the origins of the universe while disregarding the dogmas of theism (or more specifically: the three biggest monotheisms of Judaism, Christianity and Islam). Deists argue that humans cannot know how the universe began, and that as a result there must be something (or someone) behind its creation. One of my deist friends says that science cannot explain the origins of the universe because it is impossible for something to come from nothing.
While this may seem like a compelling argument I would like to point why I take the position of atheism over that of deism. To me, the idea of a creator that set everything in motion before disappearing, moving on, or whatever else, is far too convenient an explanation for the origins of the universe. It is, personally, too close to the religious mindset. The idea that things we as a species do not yet understand can be explained by saying "a god did it" seems, at some level, childish. It also poses another problem. Those who argue that it is impossible for something to come from nothing (using science as their basis) bring upon themselves the question of an infinite regression. If it is not possible for something to come from nothing, then where did this creator come from? You then end up having to make a creator for the creator, and for that creator, and so on. This does not seem like a scientific way of approaching such an enormous question.
I would like to also point out, at this juncture, that atheism (as I understand it) is not the belief that there is no god, but the lack of a belief in god. It is an important distinction to make I feel. I do not claim to know or be able to explain the origins of the universe. Even if it is scientifically proven one way or another in my lifetime I still doubt I could adequately explain it (that is what scientists are for!). I do not believe in a creating or intervening entity simply because such a being comes into a direct contradiction of my understanding of science. I have said before that if I am proved wrong on this point I will happily admit to my mistake but for the time being I see no convincing evidence that such an entity exists.
Which brings me to theism: the belief in a god who not only created the universe, but did so with the expressed intention of nurturing mankind as his favorite species. A god who observes and intervenes in our lives and is a moral judge for our actions here on Earth. I apologize now to any well meaning theists reading this but I have to be blunt: this concept is blindingly stupid, unbelievably ridiculous and dangerously retarding to the human condition.
Our understanding of science has put serious dents in the capacity for theistic faith of any critically thinking person. It is now estimated that 99.99% of all the species that have ever lived on Earth are now extinct. The planet is in the middle of a solar system in which all of the other planets are either far too hot or far too cold to support anything recognizable as life. Huge areas of our own planet are not able to sustain human life because they are also too hot or too cold. Some design. Evolution has unlocked many of the mysteries of our origin, and explains the biological traits that any loving creator would be, frankly, stupid to give us. We still get goosebumps despite not having enough body hair for that to be of any help, we grow wisdom teeth that no longer fit our jaws and as such cause us pain, the appendix is well past its usefulness now that we no longer feed exclusively on plant matter (and has the added bonus of having the potential to kill us when something goes wrong), our pre-frontal lobes are too small, and our adrenaline glands are far too big. We really do bear all the hallmarks of a still evolving primate species.
Theists who believe in evolution have also got to contend with the arrogant assumption in that position that it was a process designed with humans as the intended result. What total piffle. They must also think that evolution (as far as humans are concerned) has stopped, because we are obviously the perfect model of an animal. I believe I have already given examples of why that belief is flawed.
I will finish with a little note on the three biggest monotheisms. If you believe in the dogmas of one of these faiths you have to face an awful truth. Biologists now say that humans (in pretty much their current biological form) have been on the Earth for between 100,000 years and 250,000 years. Francis Collins, who was in charge of the team that sequenced the human genome puts the number at 100,000 whereas Richard Dawkins puts the number at 250,000. To make this point, I shall take the lower number. If you believe in one of the three monotheisms you must also, in light of this fact, believe that for (at least) 96,000 years God watched his 'favorite' species die in childbirth, giving birth, from diseases they didn't know existed, or from territorial turf wars (to name a few). He watched as they cowered in abject terror at natural phenomena like earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunamis. He watched this, and did nothing for 96,000 years. It was only after this time that he finally said "Right! Now it's time to intervene". But he did not intervene in China, where they could already read and write, but in bronze age Palestine. That is what you have to believe if you claim that one of the three major monotheisms is true. Not exactly the best way to show your favor, is it?
No comments:
Post a Comment