A God in the Shadows

"For rain that's falling halfway down the sky
I apologize"—"I apologize", Splender

I've never understood why, if God exists, he would leave so many people so much room for doubt about his mere existence. I've heard people say, "What do you mean? I see God working in my life every day!" and, "If you're not looking for miracles, you won't notice them." That may be true, but I don't understand why God would purposefully stay aloof, from everybody or just from me.

God supposedly healed plenty of lepers and cripples and blind people, but he seems to be shy about anything as dramatic as healing an amputee. I guarantee you that would get nonbelievers' attention, even if they're just predisposed to doubt.

People might say that God doesn't want to make it too easy because having faith is so important, and people wouldn't depend on faith if they had clear evidence. But that sounds a lot better when you're talking about a yes-or-no question, whether God exists, than about what sort of God exists and how to do what he wants. If you have blind faith, but it's faith in the wrong god, that's a double shame. And I just can't see how God would be doing us a service by giving us just enough evidence that we still have the "freedom" to reasonably conclude he doesn't exist.

And if it's a personal God, why would he pass up the chance to have a relationship with so many people? It's not just major miracles I'm thinking about. How is a relationship more meaningful if you talk in barely audible whispers?

For me, it's not really compelling anymore to go hunting for prophecies that might have been fulfilled, or otherwise chasing after God, since any sort of God I would be inclined to worship would have already contacted me directly, or at the very least would do so sometime in the near future. There is no other evidence or line of reasoning any person can show me that would lead me to reconsider. If you want me to believe in God, you'll have to take it up with him.

The Ontological Argument in One Easy Step

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.—The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

I was watching an interview with Colin McGinn where he said that he thought the ontological argument is interesting because nobody's ever managed to pinpoint exactly what's wrong with it even though it's wholly unconvincing to everybody who hears it. There are lots of ways to show it's absurd (e.g. Guanilo's Island), but none are concise and direct enough to seem like the problem with it.

Well, a line of reasoning recently occurred to me that I'd like to put forth as the problem with the ontological argument. The normal version goes something like this:

1. God is defined as the most perfect being conceivable.
2. If he didn't exist, he would be less perfect than a being who did exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

I think there's a two-part gimmick in the argument, and that I can simplify it down without losing any of the meaning:

1. God is defined as a being who exists.
2. Therefore God exists.

The trick is in confusing the levels, and losing the difference between a definition and reality. If you dream that you woke up, it doesn't mean you're awake. By the same token, a being that's defined to exist doesn't necessarily exist (nor a being that's defined as "a being defined to exist"). The part about "what it means to be perfect" just acts as misdirection from the meat of the argument enough to block your common sense.

There's no contradiction whatsoever within the definition, nothing wrong with it even, but every definition is a hypothetical of sorts, just a label to tell me what you mean when you use the word.

I did happen to notice that Kant looks to have proposed almost the same counterargument, but his version seems wordier and was one of four bullet points in his argument. I wonder if Colin McGinn is familiar with Kant's refutation...

Depression and Atheism

Look through a faithless eye
Are you afraid to die?—"Thoughts of a Dying Atheist", Muse

I've heard a lot of speculation here and there about a link between depression and atheism. It certainly makes sense to Christians that without God and a life purpose, there's just no reason to get out of bed in the morning. And there's enough circumstantial evidence that you don't have to be living under a rock to believe it. But I suspect the majority of Christians only (knowingly) know at most one atheist personally, so I would take any generalizations about atheists from the mouth of a Christian with a grain of salt. Heck, I don't think most atheists are qualified to talk about atheists in general.

But it might surprise you to hear that I do suspect there's a link between depression and atheism, just not the way you might think: I'm not convinced that atheism causes much if any depression, but I do suspect that depression causes a lot of atheism, in a manner of speaking. Specifically, I propose that atheism is more natural and easier to accept from a depressive mindset than from a typical "well-balanced" mindset.

Cause and Effect

Emotions have a bigger effect on reasoning than it's comfortable to accept. Marvin Minsky proposes in The Emotion Machine that the division between emotions and reason may even be an artificial notion. I find from my own experience that my mind just works differently when I'm upset, and sometimes the differences are bigger than the similarities.

Someone who sees the world from under a shadow isn't going to see a divine underlying plan in everything that happens, or see little victories as a clear answer to prayer. They don't expect everything to magically work itself out in life or after death, and more often than not prayer won't give much comfort when they're having problems.

But even that's not all there is to it.

The Skeptical Mindset

When I get a heartwarming email forward, or hear a factoid from a motivational speaker, my first instinct is to check it on Snopes, every time. It doesn't matter if it's a good story, or if it makes a really good point, or if I think the teller is trying to trick me. The bottom line is, if it purports to be a true story, and it isn't, I don't want to be retelling it. And I've been shocked before by what convincing yarns turned out to be false, but I'm getting pretty good at sniffing out fabrications.

I bring it up because most people, under some conditions, just won't bother checking all the facts. It's tedious, and by the time you've confirmed all the facts, all the emotional punch is gone. A lot of those people, for whatever reason, gravitate towards religion, and the fact checkers gravitate away. There are just too many uncheckable facts.

Why it Matters

A lot of people would probably read my claim and say, "Oh, another reason to write atheists off. They don't believe in God because they're depressed all the time, but we emotionally balanced people can think clearly." I think that's a bit unfair. I'm not so sure there is an "unclouded reason" in any emotional state, or any "unbiased" default mode of thinking. My skeptical mind helps me investigate bugs in the software I deal with at work, and I think engineers, doctors, stage magicians, and judges need a similar skeptical mind to do their jobs properly. There are problems amenable to a sober mind and problems amenable to a cheerful mind.

If depression is part of the reason behind atheism, though, it does imply that God may not be the one and only cure for said depression. Usually God comes first, then depression, then atheism.

Depression medication won't necessarily "cure" atheism, either. People don't always take psychoactive meds consistently, and seeing their entire mindset change when going on and off the medication can make them question everything they used to believe. A lot of medication won't even dampen the skeptical nature, since that's not the problem it's designed to fix.

But Then Again...

I only come into contact with a specific population of atheists, so I'm never convinced that I've seen the whole picture, but I do know a lot of atheists who are on or have been on depression medication, and those are just the ones who talk about it. Still, it's possible it's all in my head, and atheists aren't any more depressed than the rest of the population.

Spreading Atheism

I keep hearing people say that atheists have no valid motive or right to spread atheism. I think this perspective is ridiculous all over. The reasons to promote atheism may not be as obvious, but they can be just as significant to an atheist as a Christian's reasons are to the Christian.

The most common objection is "you only have this life to worry about, but for me it's an issue of eternity". If this life is all I have, wouldn't it be worth more to me? And if my earthly surroundings are all I'll ever have, am I not justified in being particular about them? I like the story about the boy throwing beached starfish back into the water, where a man comes along and asks, "What difference does it make? You'll never save them all." The boy says, "To the ones I do save, it makes all the difference in the world." All these "insignificant" moments on earth add up, and even Christians believe one's actions in this life make all the difference.

I also believe atheism is the truth, and I think the truth stands for something in its own right. I may not believe in absolute morality, but I do believe in absolute truth, and even though I can't force anyone to accept what I believe to be the truth, I refuse to subvert it to tolerance and "personal preference".

So, what's an appropriate response to the belief that there is no God? For me, the process of rejecting faith was excruciating, even if parts of it were thrilling and rewarding. I do believe that hard-earned knowledge is more valuable and profound, but I don't believe in burning books to make all learning a struggle. If you want to climb upwards, neither flat ground nor a sheer cliff is as useful as a flight of stairs.

My frustrations have come not so much from the disagreement and "intolerance" as from the misunderstanding, disrespect, and outright shock that I received from theists around me. I've also struggled with all kinds of fear, having secrets that may or may not destroy relationships, but could never be taken back. My approach to making things a little better for each generation is more of exposure than education. I try to be "the atheist" in someone's life and show them how little difference it makes, and what form the differences take. I also try to disarm loaded words like "atheist" by using them in natural conversation, when possible.

I like to develop and refine my beliefs by discussion with people who disagree. I don't measure success in "converts to atheism", because I find that it's rare for people to be "led" to atheism. Instead I try to break the certainty people have that they already know everything that I'm going to say, and to give them a flavor of what atheism is really like.

One of my less noble goals is to make the world a little less passively theistic. The way things stand, it's a theist's world and we're just living in it. They have all the traditions, political power, and the "right of way" in most parts of the world. A lot of theist comforts come at atheists' expense, and if they're bailing water from their boat into our ocean, I wouldn't mind bailing some of it back into their boat.

It may sound bitter to frustrate theists just for its own sake, but especially with regard to religious traditions I think the small effects add up. Many Christians refuse to participate in the "harmless traditions" of Santa Claus and Halloween, or the questionable tradition of Mardis Gras (not that any of those are "atheist traditions"), and I call that justification enough for my actions.

Dear Typical Atheist: Please Stop Embarrassing Us

I was raised Christian in a private Christian school, my entire extended family has always been Christian, and I didn't know any atheists to speak of until I became one (I love my family and friends tremendously even though I disagree with them, but I do wish I had had someone to share the journey with). Since then, my exposure to other atheists has been limited, split between self-advertised atheists and people who haven't cared enough to dig into the issues or argue the point, but would rather sleep in on Sunday mornings. I've also read a few relevant statistics, but they're notoriously unreliable for all kinds of reasons. As a result, I can't really profile the entire atheist cross-section of society, but almost every atheist or agnostic I've met has a few irritating viewpoints in common, and I'd like to systematically challenge those perspectives. (If anyone can point me towards counterexamples, please please get in touch with me).

Firstly, science does not unequivocally prove your case for atheism. Science, as a collection, is not a mass of truth or facts, but a mass of data. It's messy, it's ambiguous, and most of it is either outright wrong or just an approximation. You don't own Science, it's not your God, and if it happens to be in your favor it's only a matter of probability, not certainty.

Next, you don't sound as smart as you think repeating again and again that you don't believe the Bible because it's full of contradictions, and you look downright stupid making an official list of them. Wikipedia's full of contradictions, and so are you. My favorite example, Proverbs 26:4-5, is a litmus test of small-mindedness:

4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
or you will be like him yourself.
5 Answer a fool according to his folly,
or he will be wise in his own eyes.

These verses are adjacent! Do you really think that this "contradiction" just slipped through the proofreading? Does this really have any bearing whatsoever on whether the Bible is worth believing?

In my opinion, most of the Bible is not very significant because it's not reasonably falsifiable: there are too many "escape clauses" and too few risky predictions. There are a few decent examples of self-contained arguments against the Bible's credibility, but for the most part you're not going to point to a group of passages in the Bible and raise many eyebrows, Christian or atheist.

There's one perspective that's only shared by agnostics and Christians, never atheists, but needs to be called out nonetheless: that it's impossible to be atheist because you can't prove God doesn't exist, and therefore there are only agnostics and believers. This claim is exactly as absurd as the reverse, that you can't be Christian because you can't prove beyond all doubt that God does exist (regardless of which perspective is better supported by evidence).

There's a similar attack stating that you can't really be a relativist because the statement "everything is relative" would have to be absolutely true, but again that perspective confuses two levels of assertion: the assertion itself (P), and the assertion that P is undeniable or absolute. I can easily state that I have no reason to believe anything is absolute. I'll save the relativism debate for another post, though.