On Meteors and Miracles
The October meteor shower was the most exciting thing to happen to the small city of Ven for several decades. The reason for this was not because meteor showers look pretty at night, or because there were so many meteors large enough to create craters; it was because the craters had roughly formed the shape of a skewed five-prong star.
It was I who first saw the crater field, several kilometres out of the city, while filming it from a helicopter for the local news station. As I reported on it live from the helicopter, I laughed and jokingly said that if you turned your head and squinted, the craters could form a star. It turned out that not everybody thought it was as funny as I had.
Back at the news station, our crew had a casual discussion about the crater field. My co-reporter agreed with me that the sight of the shower itself was more amazing than any vague shape it might have happened to form. But when I spoke to the chef in the tuck shop, he seemed to be certain that the star shape was a sign of communication from an alien race, and that to hit Earth they must be aware of our existence and on their way here at that very moment.
The gardener had other ideas. He also thought the meteor field was the intentional work of aliens, but he was certain that the meteors had been aimed for the city and that an unforeseen circumstance had ‘blown’ the meteors slightly west. He also asserted that the aliens were on their way to Earth to finish the job.
The news anchor wasn’t sure who had ’sent’ the meteors, but she knew one thing for sure: the largest crater, at the tip of the star shape, was pointing to Russia. When I asked her why it wasn’t ‘pointing’ to any location between Ven and Russia, or even past Russia, she seemed unable to answer me but nonetheless remained sure that it was a sign to befriend Russia.
When I asked the weatherman, I was under the impression that he agreed with myself and my co-reporter, but this belief was firmly dashed when he informed me that this meteor shower, the largest seen in centuries, was a supernatural warning of even larger, more devastating meteor ‘attacks’ to come, despite historical records of even larger meteor showers colliding with Earth.
The news editor, who was also a religious priest, assured me that the crater star was a sign from a supernatural deity. The multitudes of religious figures I interviewed in the coming days agreed with this as the shape’s origin, but every single individual had starkly contrasting views on what the star meant. Among these interpretations were imminent apocalypse, condemnation of the newly-elected mayor, confirmation of the newly-elected mayor, the imminent return of a deity to Earth, the marking of Ven as the new ‘holy land’, and dozens more. What they had in common was that each was absolutely certain that the star was confirmation from their chosen deity that they were believing in the right thing.
People seemed inclined to believe one of these religious figures rather than those who were in the same mind as the chef, gardener, anchor or weatherman, though I couldn’t understand why. All were making guesses with no evidence, all believed an invisible being had ’sent’ the star, all drew a conclusion from the vague shape that suited what beliefs they already had, all believed they were one hundred perfect right, and all are capable of human error. Each claimed they had all the answers, and none seemed annoyed that this lame, vague shape was the best that this powerful invisible being could muster.
The government took advantage of the huge tourist attraction of the crater field, and set up fences and boardwalks to protect the craters. There was also expensive helicopter rides to see the star shape from a good vantage point, which was a very popular activity. I wondered if those thousands of dollars spent on seeing vague geomorphic shapes could be put to better use in the world.
Eventually a church, with its mounds of untaxed capital, bought the meteor-hammered land from the government and put signs all around the site advertising the supposed truth of their religion. This angered other religions worldwide, and shortly afterwards the crater field was devastated by a series of bombing attacks. The star shape had been erased, the craters were indistinguishable from bomb scorch marks, and what physical reminder had remained of that beautiful twilit meteor shower was lost.
I partially blamed myself for the whole affair, having acknowledged the vague shape live on air, and I often wonder if anyone would have noticed it had I not voiced my thoughts. What I had planned to be a story on the beauty and natural wonder of meteor showers had turned, with the help of dogmatic and fanatical beliefs, into more global religious conflict resulting in the utter destruction of the greatest natural event that would happen in my lifetime. Sometimes, before I go off to sleep, I wonder what would have happened if people had believed the gardener.
A Word on Morality
A common question posed to non-theists is, of course, “Theists get their morality from God. Where do you get your morality from?” or alternatively the more blatant “Atheists are immoral because they don’t accept God’s written rules of morality.” Other humanistic writers have shattered this insulting assertion utterly and brilliantly, but I still wish to refute it for my own liberty.
The first and foremost response to this question is simply pointing out that theists, even under the same denomination, can hardly be said to be in agreement on exactly what God’s idea of morality is. There are literally hundreds of different “interpretations” of the Bible alone, the most extreme of which spit on the very idea of morality. And ironically, it is these fundamentalists who are following God’s written laws most precisely. I have no doubt that most theists who ask atheists about their “missing” morality have not read the Bible, which is of course one of the most effective methods of deconversion. A simple retort would be to ask the original questioner if they would consider the following things morally acceptable: bears mauling children as punishment for teasing; the genocide of seven civilisations for being in the wrong place; the slaying of innocent children and “ripping open” of pregnant women; and of course throwing ten thousand unarmed captives off a cliff. That’s God’s written idea of morality.
Following this, a common answer I’ve received is that these are all Old Testament shenanigans. Everything’s much better in the New Testament, they say. Jesus teaches love, compassion and ultimately all morality.
This is effectively an admission that the Old Testament is indeed brutally immoral much more often than not. To claim that God had a “change of heart” between Old and New, or that Jesus managed to convince his wrathful father that maybe humanity wasn’t so bad after all, is incompatible with the well-accepted notion of God’s infinite benevolence. It doesn’t work. To admit that God was, at some point, immoral, destroys this basic definition of the Judeo-Christian God.
This forces Christianity back onto perhaps the most frequently-heard lay apologetic: “The Bible is not meant to be taken completely literally.” The obvious problem with such a statement is thus: how are we to know which verses to take literally, and which not to take literally? As far as I know, God hasn’t left any hints. Using this ideology, I could also claim that the evil verses are the literal ones, and the verses of love “aren’t meant to be taken literally”. Taking into account that there are more of the former, this would actually be a more realistic claim. Yet I have (fortunately) heard of no one who would do such a thing. In any case, look at the above examples of outright immorality in the Bible. What on earth are we supposed to take from these verses? If not literal, are they metaphorical? Please, Christians, enlighten me on this. These are verses of injustice, bloodshed, and the slaughter of innocents. I’m not seeing a loving “message” behind it at all.
The question of which verses to shrug off as non-literal is of course synonymous with the question of which verses aren’t likely to be featured as “Bible Verse of the Day” at a church. It’s synonymous with the question of which verses are kept quiet and pushed behind the curtain by preachers and evangelizers. It’s synonymous with the question of which verses are left out of the (Christian-written) ”children’s Bible”. What does this mean? Christians are not just getting their morality from God. More accurately, they are flicking through God’s written word and pulling out the verses that they want to get their morality from. And on what basis do they decide which verses are good examples of morality? Why, the same basis as atheists, of course.
While I am thankful that Christians effectively decide their own morality rather than taking all of God’s (rather controversial) written advice, I also hope that the stereotype of the immoral non-theist will be replaced with the more accurate image of someone who intrinsically desires to minimize suffering and maximise happiness, and knows it.
Forever Will Ye Burn
It is a general consensus among atheists and critics of religion that the doctrine of Hell — an afterlife in which wrongdoers and/or opposition of a particular religion will suffer horrific, conscious pain for an infinite amount of time — is the lowest and most disgusting fabrication of religion.
While words cannot even begin to describe the horror and disturbed “purpose of justice” behind such a place, allow me to give you an example of exactly what Hell is supposed to be. Imagine, for a moment, that you were to commit adultery, and as punishment for this, you had to live the rest of your life with a machine attached to your arms that crushed your bones, healed them instantly, then crushed them again, and so on until you died. Well, that’s absolutely nothing compared to Hell. Hell is not a two-year prison sentence for minor assault. Hell is infinite. If one lifetime of constant pain sounds horrific, multiply that by a trillion, and…well, you’re still nowhere close: any finite amount of time is infinitely small compared to infinity.
Putting the actual characteristics of this gruesome realm aside, there’s no mystery as to its purpose. The threat of eternal punishment is the most obvious method of scaring people into following you. Putting the punishment in a place where no one can ever prove or disprove its existence is the next obvious step. Then label anyone you dislike as destined for this mythical torture chamber. “Join us, or forever will ye burn!”
However, Hell’s purpose (and similarly Heaven’s) is somewhat diluted by the fact that most religions claim to have their own version of such a place. Visual representations may change (ranging from the Bible’s lakes of fire to Dante’s artistic rendition of the “nine levels” of the inferno), but ultimately each religion gives Hell the same purpose. It is only the “List of the Condemned” that really changes — each group puts forward a different set of criteria that one must follow to avoid this undesirable fate.
This is the main reason why nonsense such as Pascal’s Wager (the ”better safe than sorry!” of religion) falls laughably short. Think about it: at this very moment, there are millions, likely hundreds of millions, of people who think you are going to some sort of Hell (or at least, their beliefs dictate it; it’s not something said in light conversation). It’s possible that several people in your life are among these people. And atheists? We’re basically only being condemned to one more version of Hell than anyone else. Amidst the thousands of versions of Hell in existence, that doesn’t make us much worse off than theists in terms of Pascal’s Wager. And I for one would gladly add one more Hell to the list of supernatural realms I’m “destined” for, if I receive in exchange the life of freedom, happiness and caring that accompanies atheism.
Hell is both a disturbing and problem-causing part of religion. It is not enough that followers believe they are destined for an eternity of happiness; they must also specifically believe that anyone who thinks otherwise is not only shunned from this paradise, but condemned to suffer forever. I don’t doubt there would be a fair bit less tension between religions if they could simply believe they were headed for eternal paradise, whilst others simply faced unconscious oblivion. Perhaps then, one human being would not look into the eyes of another, perhaps a life-long friend, and sincerely tell them that they deserve to burn in a lake of fire for all eternity.
No Questions Asked
I recently stumbled upon a hilarious collection of common (and satirised) “proofs” for the existence of a divine being. Of these 500+ arguments, I have heard at least half from theists, and for that reason I advise both humour-seeking atheists and explanation-seeking theists to have a look at them. Theists using these arguments: no doubt you have heard this before, but none of these arguments are going to convert anyone, especially anyone who has taken the time to read the far stronger reasons as to why they are flawed (Ebon deals with the less-absurd-sounding arguments beautifully here).
I’ll leave it up to you to tackle the whole list, but here’s some of my personal favourites (some jokes, some frighteningly used seriously by theists).
49. ARGUMENT FROM PAROCHIALISM
(1) God is everywhere.
(2) We haven’t been everywhere to prove he’s not there.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
79. ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL SANITY
(1) I’ve had religious experiences that can’t be explained unless I’m insane or God exists.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
89. BENDER’S ARGUMENT (II) (ARGUMENT FROM DAVID BLAINE)
(1) If David Blaine does real magic, then God exists.
(2) It looked real on his TV special.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
99. ARGUMENT FROM OFFENSE
(1) God exists.
(2) [Atheist makes counterarguments.]
(3) You know what? I am offended.
(4) Therefore, God exists.
174. ARGUMENT FROM STUPIDITY [Perhaps the most convincing of all.]
(1) I am stupid.
(2) God made man in his own image.
(3) There are all horrible disasters going around the world.
(4) God is omnipotent in power.
(5) God is too stupid to do anything about these things.
(6) Therefore, God exists.
211. ARGUMENT FROM WOW
(1) When I look into the sky and see all the pretty stars, all those galaxies…
(2) Wow.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
441. ARGUMENT FROM MESSED UP TRINITARIAN REASONING
(1) God is three.
(2) Three’s a crowd.
(3) A crowd consists of people.
(4) People exist.
(5) Therefore, God exists.
544. ARGUMENT FROM NEGATIVE DIVINE JUSTICE (II)
(1) If there is no God, then gays and others who do things I don’t like may never be punished.
(2) I want them to be punished.
(3) Only God could give us Divine Justice and punish them.
(4) Therefore, God exists.
Finally, one with interesting connotations:
39. ARGUMENT FROM NONBELIEF
(1) The majority of the world’s population are nonbelievers in Christianity.
(2) This is just what Satan intended.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
This is indeed what Satan intended! And he’s winning! The endless numbers of Christian sects make up only 33% of the world’s population! The remaining 67% have been tempted from the Path of Christ by Satan! Is God really that powerless to stop Satan from tricking these people into evil lives, bound for eternal torment at God’s reluctant-but-necessary hand of justice? For someone who was once second-in-command to God, old Lucifer’s doing pretty well for himself. Oh, and that’s not including the fact that a great deal of said Christian sects think the other Christian sects are also under Satan’s dominance.
Of course, this 67% as a whole doesn’t particularly offend Christians; no, it’s the 2.5%-strong atheists who are the real danger. All these others have at least some sort of divine belief — but atheists are arrogant enough to claim there’s nothing divine at all. How dare they stand opposed to the religious wars, church bigotry and indoctrination, creationist pseudoscience and discriminating dogma that are part of most world religions? How dare they abandon the restraints of a worship-bound existence, to seek self-fulfilment and humanistic goals? How dare they think themselves so much more intelligent than us?
No, these arguments for God make as much impact on atheists as our arguments make on theists, for two completely different reasons. Regardless, I urge theists to look not to proof of a divine being in words or holy books: look to the world; to what religion truly is and to what it strives for; to what has come about as a result of faith-dependent superstition; and to the impact it has had on your own moral urges and your own life.
Is it coincedence that a person’s religion is directly derived from the religion of local, surrounding people? Is it coincedence that religion tells you that all arguments defying their doctrines are indisputedly false? Is it coincedence that religion’s ultimate reward — eternal life — is in a place where no one can ever disprove its existence? Is it coincedence that your religious leaders “forget” to enlighten you as to the darker verses of your holy book? And is it coincedence that you have absolutely nothing except their word and “a fuzzy feeling inside you” that what they’re telling you is true?
Of course, from an atheist’s point of view, none of these things are a coincedence – just religion.
Supernatural Selection
One of the core points of the theory of evolution is natural selection; the refining of desirable traits of organisms over a period of time. The general idea is that organisms with characteristics suitable for survival in a particular environment will have a greater chance of outliving other less suitable organisms: survival of the fittest.
However, in recent times I have been speculating over the existence of a similar process, one that I theorise has been operating for several millenia, since humanity first raised its heads to the stars in curiosity; a selection of not genes, but memes.
Modern, organised religion displays every similarity to the work of a thought virus. Ebonmuse writes fantastically on the topic of memes in his essay Thoughts in Captivity, and a follow-up post here. He talks of the way in which memes rapidly replicate, spread through processes such as indoctrination, and shape themselves to block out any information that could threaten their parasitical grip (primarily, the concept of “faith”, which not only insists that evidence is unnecessary for something to be absolutely true but often also depicts contradicting evidence as an intentional, malevolent attempt to sway one’s belief).
While the notion that memes replicate and spread is undoubtedly accurate, and explains why religions are structured as they are, I think there is another side to the concept that Ebon’s essay touches upon: a “survival of the fittest” among memes. Why is Christianity such a major religion? How has it survived for two thousands years? What other religions have existed in the past, “extinct” in modern times?
Obviously, part of Christianity’s success is due to its effective methods of converting others, transmitting itself, and retaining followers. Once again, Ebon sums this up perfectly in his essay. Christianity offers the rather appealing reward of eternal life, in addition to a kind of “always by your side” relationship with Jesus Christ. It commands to be taught to your children, so that they may also share this wonderful after-death (and conveniently unfalsifiable) prize; and, of course, teaches followers that if you leave, you’ll be thrown into a fiery lake to burn forever (a sickeningly horrific doctrine guaranteed to scare young children into line).
These tactics have proven themselves effective in the long run, but it raises a question: surely, thousands of years ago, when nearly everyone believed in some sort of over-ruling supernatural force, there was more than one religion that possessed similarly-efficient memetic tools? Why did Christianity flourish where these did not?
Without a method of time-travel, this question will always result only in speculation. I am reasonably confident, however, that I can theorise on at least part of the answer: objective morality. Morality has changed, foremost for the better, in two thousand years, and world religion has changed with it. Religions that openly and unquestionably condone violence and hatred are near extinction, because humanity as a society has evolved morally. It is my belief that one reason Christianity flourished over similarly-effective memeplexes can be traced back to the verses of love and compassion present in the Bible: yes, they may be few, but they are present, particularly due to the fact that Christians look to the New Testament and tend to mutter vaguely about the “out of date” Old Testament.
Whereas other ancient religions painted their deities as vengeful and often intentionally violent, Christianity does not promote their god as such, regardless of the Bible (once again, the Old Testament in particuar). Why does this matter? Because people want to believe in a God who, at the very least, tells his people that he loves them (or wants to, at any rate) and that they can help him do that by accepting him. I have little doubt that, two thousand years ago, the messages of Jesus from the New Testament were extremely moral and compassionate in comparison to other religions of the time.
This points indeed to a survival contest of religion: in effect, religion’s natural selection. Religions that possess both the tools to spread and stick, and the content to ensure that they survive as objective morality grows, have survived, where blatantly violent cults or less memetic religions have struggled and reached extinction.
There are dozens of passages in the Bible that are generally overlooked by mainstream Christianity. God openly condemns adulterers, homosexuals, thieves, disobedient children and young hooligans to death, among many others. He bluntly states that women are inferior and are bound to serve their husbands. He bets on human lives with his own malevolent arch-nemesis. He punishes multitudes of innocents for the wrongdoing of just a few people, on multiple occasions. I am as thankful as the next person (and, I hope, the next theist) that these occurences are conveniently overlooked by most of Christianity, but they are all examples of how objective morality, separate from religion, has overridden the will of God, even within the church.
