hinchley.net

This is the seventh and final installment of a multi-part series. You can also read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3. Part 4, Part 5 and Part 6.

In this series i have discussed a number of the reasons why i am no longer a christian. I have not attempted to write a definitive work. I simply wanted to provide an overview of the key obstacles that stand in the way of my belief in God.

In the first post i talked about the absurdity of the gospel. It simply does not make sense that the punishment of an innocent party in lieu of the guilty serves to redeem the guilty. I simply do not understand how the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ absolves my own selfish rebellion. The punishment of the righteous for crimes they did not commit is not justice. It is nonsensical. We are to believe that God’s punishment of himself, to satisfy his own desire for justice, somehow makes us worthy of knowing him. I challenge anyone to rationally explain how this works.

I argued that although “free will” allows us to make choices about our day to day actions, we do not ultimately have the freedom to choose a sinless life; although specific acts of sin are preventable, the very concept of sin is not. As such, it can be argued that God has made us in such a way that sin, and hence the fall of mankind, was completely unavoidable. And yet, through the punishment that ensued the inescapable entrance of original sin, we suffer for that which we could not and cannot control. The world is bursting at the seams under the weight of God’s punishment. Every day we suffer the burden of disease and dysfunction that are the consequences of an insurrection that we were powerless to prevent. I do not believe that God’s plan to save us makes a wrong right. God cannot be lauded for rescuing us from death when he is responsible for the sin that leads to death.

Finally, i touched upon the negativity of christian theology; a theology that proclaims the idea that God is perfect and we are worthless. This is not a message that builds people up. It is not a message that rehabilitates. It reminds me of the infamous scientology survey: on approaching the church of scientology you will be asked to complete an innocuous questionnaire. Upon review you are told that your answers testify to your almost complete inner corruption. Fortunately you came to the right place; only “they” know how to make you right. With your sense of self worth diminished, and your confidence in tatters, you sign up. Christianity is no different. What more encouragement do you need to join the fold then to be told you will burn in hell for all eternity if you do not follow Christ?

In the second post i challenged the watchmaker analogy (the argument that claims that if the design of a watch implies a designer, it would therefore seem obvious that the entire universe, infinitely more complex than a silly old wristwatch, must also have a designer, and that designer is God).

I need to point out that the weakness of this particular argument is not an actual reason why i am not a christian. The argument is just an example of an almost countless number of nuanced philosophical propositions that seek to prove the existence of God. These arguments, and the counter arguments, and the counter countered arguments, are typically nothing more than confused rhetoric tripped up on definitions and leaky premises that ultimately do nothing to provide us with any certainty on the existence of God. With that said, i couldn’t pass up the opportunity to provide my own rebuttal of the watchmaker analogy.

I attempted to show that the introduction of God to explain the existence of a complicated entity (i.e. our universe), only gives rise to an even more complicated entity (i.e. God) that needs explanation. If it’s possible to assert that God has always existed and doesn’t need to be created then i cannot understand why (philosophically at least) the universe could not always have existed.

I then proceeded to explain how science offers an idea in support of an ever-existent universe, or should i say, never ending sequence of oscillating universes. This is not to say that science has proposed anything more than just an idea; however, the mere recognition of reasonable alternative explanations for the creation of the universe is sufficient to relegate the watchmaker analogy to just another “idea” and not a justifiable “motive” for belief. In other words, although arguments, such as an oscillating universe, or the anthropic principle, do not disprove God, they do discredit any attempt by christians to prove the existence of God. And without positive proof, i argue that we need to fall back to a default position of non-belief. As a side note, there is one clear difference between the theological claims of creation and scientific claims: the latter is based on tangible and reproducible measurements resulting from the study of the world in which we live; unlike the former which is based on nothing tangible, nothing reproducible, and certainly nothing measurable.

In the third post i discuss the idea that people of all religions typically use the same reasons to justify their beliefs. It should be clear that if two people of different religions are arriving at different conclusions about the nature of God, and both use the same arguments to support these mutually exclusive claims (i.e. personal experience, prayer, divine knowledge, etc), then the arguments cannot be sound, as a sound argument cannot support mutually exclusive outcomes.

I also argued that the apparent universality of religion (i.e. a persistent belief in the concept of God across time and culture) does not demonstrate the existence of God. I explained that the human drive to understand the numinous and to embrace the mystical does not for a moment suggest that God exists, and as with all broad spectrum human character traits, there is strong reason to suggest that our predilection for religion is rooted in our evolutionary past.

In part 4 of the series i note that through the act of prayer christians are clearly asserting a belief in a theistic god that is willing to actively involve himself in worldly events. It is hopefully clear that a belief in an interventionist god demands that science and religion are in conflict. For as soon as you acknowledge the existence of an interfering god, you must admit that the interference can be observed, and at this point, you provide science with the opportunity to study that interference.

I proceed to highlight a number of issues relating to prayer including why we even need to ask God for relief from suffering and hardship if he is a loving God and already knows our thoughts.

However, the pinnacle argument against prayer is that we can never actually tell if our prayers are answered. If we observe no results, we can claim that our prayer wasn’t consistent with God’s will. If we observe some result, but not what we expected, we can claim that God knows better than we do, and is working out his divine purpose in our lives. And finally, if we observe the results we expect, we can claim whole heartedly that God has indeed responded to our petitions, although we actually have no way of demonstrating that the apparent response was not sheer coincidence; a case of the world just working itself out. For this is the problem: all answered prayer is self-limiting; the only prayers that are ever “answered” are those that seek outcomes that could occur by natural means. For example, we get the promotion at work, our sick friend gets better, etc, but you will never see an amputee re-grow a missing limb. A truly miraculous response to prayer, which would clearly put the nail in the coffin of atheism, is nowhere to be seen.

In the fifth post i discuss two topics. Firstly, i explain why i consider there to be insufficient evidence to support a belief in the bodily resurrection of Christ. Secondly, i explain why i consider the eternal assignment of non-christians to hell to be irreconcilable with the concept of a just god.

I challenge the idea that many books of the bible were really written independently (a state referred to as multiple attestation). They may be written by different authors, and at different times, but the authors have drawn on a common body of understanding, not just explicitly, as Matthew and Luke reference Mark, but implicitly in the way the writings represent an already agreed and respected account of events.

With respect to the extra-biblical references to the resurrection, i do not regard these accounts as particularly revealing. An historian is like a reporter. They report what they see and hear in the community. They are not oracles of truth. In recording the occurrence of a particular event, an historian, or other social commentator, is not necessarily lending weight to the notion that the event actually occurred. They are simply recording what others purport to have occurred.

I then proceed to discuss the greatest obstacle i have when it comes to accepting the resurrection of Christ. The evidence available in support of the resurrection is not sufficient to justify acceptance of the miraculous. Let me generalize: the evidence provided to a claim must be commensurate with the scale of the claim. I would not be willing to accept the word of my wife or her friends if she claimed that she travelled to the moon. I’d need more than verbal or written confirmation before i was willing to accept the truly miraculous. The resurrection is not an everyday event, and everyday evidence is not sufficient. I need substantially more evidence before i am willing to accept the writings of people that i do not know; writing 2000 years ago in a context, and for a purpose, of which i cannot be sure; writing in a mythical age, where without the benefit of science, and critical rational thought, all sorts of wild fancy abounded. I just cannot accept that these writings, and these writings alone, are sufficient to support a completely miraculous claim, when i, and arguably no one alive today, has ever witnessed the truly miraculous. The bible is “full” of miraculous events. Isn’t it strange that these miracles no longer occur; that the events vanish into thin air in the context of an educated and critical society?

In the second thread of this article i propose that eternal judgement in hell is an unjust punishment for a lifetime of rebellion against God. The key principle of justice is the notion that the payment fits the crime. Eternal torment in the flames of hell, with no opportunity for respite or escape, is anything but justice.

Anyway, what is the root cause of my apparent sinfulness? I don’t follow God because i don’t believe there is sufficient evidence to warrant belief in his existence. Why should i be punished for all eternity because God hasn’t provided evidence commensurate with the claim that he came to Earth, died, and rose from the dead? Why should i be punished if he hasn’t made his presence clear? I mean, what kind of god would punish a person, and punish them for all eternity for failing to be convinced of the miraculous on insufficient evidence? It isn’t right.

In the sixth and final post in the series i turn to the problem of suffering: How can a god that is all knowledgeable, all powerful, and all loving, allow us to suffer?

If God knows everything, he knows our present suffering, and even before he created us, he knew of the suffering that we would endure. If God is all powerful, he could end our suffering, or he could have created us in a way that avoided suffering. And if God is all loving, he would want to keep us from suffering. The mere presence of suffering in the world suggests that at least one, and possibly all, of these claims about God are invalid.

The most popular argument against the problem of suffering is free will (the notion that suffering is an unavoidable consequence of humans making bad choices). I explained that no one has complete free will (i can stand, but not fly), and that my limitations do not prevent me from worshiping God. The point is, i could still have the freedom to love God, the freedom to choose him or reject him, without necessarily needing the freedom to inflict pain on my fellow humans. Why didn’t God leave off the freedom to hurt?

I suggested the idea that we deserve suffering is abhorrent. For our common experience tells us that suffering is not distributed fairly. Evil people do not always suffer in accordance with their deeds, nor are the loyal always blessed. Are we to suggest that the incredibly high infant mortality rate in Africa indicates that Africans are more deserving of punishment than Australians? That is absurd. Furthermore, if pain and suffering were really a direct result of God punishing us for our sinfulness, then arguably we should not try to help those in pain, for to do so would be to undermine God’s will. This is clearly absurd.

The argument that suffering is good for us is equally weak - it does nothing to explain the 3.3 million still born children each year, or the 100,000 new born babies that die of malaria.

I argued that delayed deliverance (the idea that God will one day wipe away all our tears and end suffering; the promise of future compassion) does nothing to relieve my current pain, and only serves to point to God as the essence of evil. To be able to help now, but to choose not to, is anything but just or merciful.

Finally, i concluded that the fall back position that God is a mystery is nothing but wishful thinking. If God is simply one big mystery; if we cannot understand his plans, his purpose, and his methods, then how can we possibly say that God is good? How can we justify his love for us? Our daily experience suggests that he does not love us. How do we know the invisible love of God so clearly and yet explain away the ever visible reality of wanton suffering as just a wonderful mystery?

And so ends this series.

Are these the best arguments i can offer for disbelief in God? In some ways, this is not the point. For i believe that it is not the responsibility of the non-believer to disprove the beliefs of the faithful. I will believe in something if i see a reason to believe. In the absence of a reason i will not believe. I do not believe that Atlas or Zeus or Mickey Mouse, created and sustain the universe simply because i see no compelling reason to accept this conclusion. Likewise, i do not believe in the notion of any God, for i do not see any reason to alter my default position of non-belief. I see no active presence of any God in this world. I am told that God wants me to enter into a relationship with him more than anything… so much so that his son died on the cross to make that possible. And yet no earnest plea, no heartfelt desire to seek his presence, will ever yield his appearance. Could the absence of evidence be any more obvious? There is only one response that makes sense of the dilemma: God does not exist.

I have packaged up the articles in this series into a single PDF. You can download it by clicking on the icon below. May it encourage you to think critically.