Google a simple phrase like "questions atheists must answer" or "questions for atheists" and you will find many websites, blogs, and video channels, where Christians try to put atheists on the spot by asking questions they hope will undermine their atheism.
Some of the questions are just stupid:
Other questions are sensible enough but way beyond the ability of most people to answer:
In this post I am going to look at the twelve questions posed by the author of the "Well Spent Journey" blog.
(My responses in red)
Twelve Questions to Ask an Atheist
Posted on July 8, 2012
1. Does the universe have a beginning that requires a cause? If so, what was this cause?
I don't know if the universe had a beginning that required a cause.
As far as I know the scientists have traced the history of the universe back to the point where it had existed for just the tiniest fraction of a second, but they haven't been able to get beyond that point.
Why is the question being asked?
It's just one of the many "god of the gaps" arguments employed by Christians in their discussions with atheists. Whenever an atheist admits to a lack of knowledge in a particular area (as I did just now), the Christian fills the gap with god: "You don't know what caused the universe therefore god did it."
To get an idea of the stupidity of the ploy, consider this scenario:
2. Is materialistic determinism compatible with the intrinsically probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics?
I have no idea because I know nothing about quantum mechanics.
I have read several popular books on the subject, but I really don't understand it at all. I doubt the blogger does either. In fact, in a follow-up post he confesses his ignorance when he writes,
It's just another version of the god of the gaps argument. The vast majority of atheists probably have little understanding of quantum mechanics so the Christian keeps on asking questions until the atheist finally says "I don't know" - at which point the Christian says, "Well your atheistic theories simply do not work, so that leaves us with God as the only other explanation."
Christians don't aim those questions at physicists however - because physicists have the answers.
3. How do you account for the physical parameters of the universe (the gravitational constant, the strong nuclear force, the mass and charge of a proton, etc.) being finely tuned for the existence of stars, planets, and life?
With this question the Christian implies that the parameters are so finely tuned that they could not have just 'appeared' as a matter of chance, so their values must have come from god.
It's a bit like marvelling that no matter how tall a person might be, their legs are always long enough to just reach the ground!
As it happens, Science has long ago refuted all aspects of the fine-tuning argument. Here's how scientist, Victor Stenger, summarizes the religious position in one of his recent books:
4. Why is the human mind naturally fluent in the language of mathematics, and how do you explain the eerie, seemingly unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in describing the laws of nature?
In the one sentence the blogger states that humans are "naturally fluent in the language of mathematics" yet they simultaneously find it "eerie" and "seemingly unreasonable"! I would ask him to rephrase the question.
5. Do you believe that DNA repair mechanisms, catalytically perfect enzymes, and phenomena such as substrate channeling are best explained by naturalism? If so, why are rational human scientists and engineers so woefully incapable of imitating the precision and complexity of cellular machinery that (presumably) arose via strictly irrational processes?
One slight problem with that particular ploy - the Christian has yet to prove the existence of god, so it cannot be invoked as the explanation for anything.
6. Do you believe free will to be illusory? If so, can the punishment of crimes be ethically justified (and does the word “ethical” have any real meaning).
Some of the questions are just stupid:
If we come from monkeys how come there are still monkeys?
or
What will you say when you find yourself in Hell?
Other questions are sensible enough but way beyond the ability of most people to answer:
Do you believe that DNA repair mechanisms, catalytically perfect enzymes, and phenomena such as substrate channeling are best explained by naturalism?
In this post I am going to look at the twelve questions posed by the author of the "Well Spent Journey" blog.
(My responses in red)
Twelve Questions to Ask an Atheist
Posted on July 8, 2012
1. Does the universe have a beginning that requires a cause? If so, what was this cause?
I don't know if the universe had a beginning that required a cause.
As far as I know the scientists have traced the history of the universe back to the point where it had existed for just the tiniest fraction of a second, but they haven't been able to get beyond that point.
Why is the question being asked?
It's just one of the many "god of the gaps" arguments employed by Christians in their discussions with atheists. Whenever an atheist admits to a lack of knowledge in a particular area (as I did just now), the Christian fills the gap with god: "You don't know what caused the universe therefore god did it."
To get an idea of the stupidity of the ploy, consider this scenario:
Christian: Explain to me how your refrigerator works.
Atheist: I haven't got a clue.
Christian: Therefore it was built by god.
2. Is materialistic determinism compatible with the intrinsically probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics?
I have no idea because I know nothing about quantum mechanics.
I have read several popular books on the subject, but I really don't understand it at all. I doubt the blogger does either. In fact, in a follow-up post he confesses his ignorance when he writes,
...it remains unclear to me why materialistic determinism should grant an exemption to protons, electrons, etc. (link)So why is the question being asked?
It's just another version of the god of the gaps argument. The vast majority of atheists probably have little understanding of quantum mechanics so the Christian keeps on asking questions until the atheist finally says "I don't know" - at which point the Christian says, "Well your atheistic theories simply do not work, so that leaves us with God as the only other explanation."
Christians don't aim those questions at physicists however - because physicists have the answers.
3. How do you account for the physical parameters of the universe (the gravitational constant, the strong nuclear force, the mass and charge of a proton, etc.) being finely tuned for the existence of stars, planets, and life?
With this question the Christian implies that the parameters are so finely tuned that they could not have just 'appeared' as a matter of chance, so their values must have come from god.
It's a bit like marvelling that no matter how tall a person might be, their legs are always long enough to just reach the ground!
As it happens, Science has long ago refuted all aspects of the fine-tuning argument. Here's how scientist, Victor Stenger, summarizes the religious position in one of his recent books:
With so many errors and misjudgments, and with such a gross lack of understanding of the basic science we have seen exhibited by the supporters of supernatural fine-tuning, we can safely say that their motivation is more wishful thinking than truthful scientific inference. A proper analysis finds there is no evidence that the universe is fine-tuned for us.
(The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning by Victor Stenger)
4. Why is the human mind naturally fluent in the language of mathematics, and how do you explain the eerie, seemingly unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in describing the laws of nature?
In the one sentence the blogger states that humans are "naturally fluent in the language of mathematics" yet they simultaneously find it "eerie" and "seemingly unreasonable"! I would ask him to rephrase the question.
5. Do you believe that DNA repair mechanisms, catalytically perfect enzymes, and phenomena such as substrate channeling are best explained by naturalism? If so, why are rational human scientists and engineers so woefully incapable of imitating the precision and complexity of cellular machinery that (presumably) arose via strictly irrational processes?
This time the Christian is implying that scientists have been unable to produce life in the laboratory so their explanations for the origins of life are probably wrong - and we are left with only one other alternative: God did it!
One slight problem with that particular ploy - the Christian has yet to prove the existence of god, so it cannot be invoked as the explanation for anything.
6. Do you believe free will to be illusory? If so, can the punishment of crimes be ethically justified (and does the word “ethical” have any real meaning).
This relates to the problem of evil - a subject that has been debated for thousands of years and there is still no real consensus of opinion - so I prefer not to commit myself to a few short sentences in a blog (because much more space is needed).
Already, in the last part of the question, the blogger is asking about the meaning of the word "ethical" - and that's what always happens in discussions of this type: Both sides get bogged down in a semantic debate and no conclusions are reached. That's why there is no consensus of opinion after thousands of years of earnest discussion.
Already, in the last part of the question, the blogger is asking about the meaning of the word "ethical" - and that's what always happens in discussions of this type: Both sides get bogged down in a semantic debate and no conclusions are reached. That's why there is no consensus of opinion after thousands of years of earnest discussion.
7. Does objective morality exist? If so, what is its source…and how do you define “objective”? If not, do you concede that concepts like “justice”, “fairness”, and “equality” are nothing more than social fads, and that acts of violence and oppression must be regarded merely as differences of opinion?
Again we have the problem of evil - too complicated for me to discuss here.
But we get a hint of the way in which such discussions can be hijacked by Christians with an agenda, when we notice that in the very asking of the question, the blogger has already implied that concepts like justice, fairness and equality, are regarded by atheists as "nothing more than social fads"!
8. In what terms do you define the value of human life? Is the life of a human child more or less valuable, for example, than that of an endangered species of primate?
Once again we have a question that leads directly to the "problem of evil". It seems innocent enough at the moment, but experience tells me that it won't be long before the Christian begins to present ever more difficult scenarios for the atheist to solve.
Right now the blogger is asking the atheist to choose between a human and an animal, but things will get very tricky very quickly.
Eventually both characters (human and animal) will be put into life-threatening situations and the atheist will be asked which one he will save from death.
Still later the Christian will concoct a situation where two humans are in life threatening situations and again, the atheist will be asked which one he would save --- and there will be follow-up questions:
You see why I hesitate to answer these questions?
As it happens, I have never faced a serious 'life or death' situation so I cannot be sure how I will react in any given situation. I would probably act impulsively or instinctively and 'save' the person closest to me and worry about the other person later. Or I might try to help the person in the most dangerous looking situation and hope that the other person can hang on long enough for me to get back to them. Or might panic and do nothing to help anyone. Or I might do something truly heroic. I won't really know until the time comes.
9. Much attention has been given to alleged cognitive biases and “wishful thinking” contributing to religious belief. Do you believe that similar biases (for example, the desire for moral autonomy) play a role in religious nonbelief? If not, what specifically makes atheism immune to these influences?
Here's my definition of an atheist: Someone who does not believe in god
Atheism is not a world view. There is no atheist manifesto. Put me up against another atheist and it is possible that we will disagree on every subject we talk about. The only thing necessarily common to both of us is a lack of belief in god.
Actually, I find it amusing that so many Christians try so hard to make it sound like atheism might be a religion - and then use that assumption to disparage atheism "because it is no better than a religion."
10. Do you believe religion (speaking generally) has had a net positive or a net negative effect on humanity? If the latter, how do you explain the prevalence of religion in evolutionary terms?
My opinion of the effects of religion "generally" is the same as my opinion of the effects of Christianity in particular:
Christians gained political power in the 4th Century AD and the first thing they did was to ban all other religions and kill, imprison, or exile, all those who did not convert to Christianity. Then they burned any non-Christian books they could find. Then they closed the libraries. Then they stopped education for all but the priests and the monks. That was the beginning of the Dark Ages which lasted for 600 years.
Next came 200 years of Christian Crusades against the Muslims.
Then followed 600 years of Inquisitions where heretics, blasphemers, and unbelievers were tortured, imprisoned, and put to death.
Things went quiet for about 150 years after Christianity lost it's political power in the early 19th century, but now we have the fundamentalists trying to take over the schools, preaching against science, and hoping to lead us back into another Dark Age.
So a net negative effect in my opinion.
Regarding the second part of the question: Considering the power yielded by the church during the last 1600 years, it is hardly surprising to find that Christianity is prevalent today. For most of those 1600 years any outspoken non-Christians were killed on the spot! Prevalence is to be expected under those circumstances.
11. Is it rational for you to risk your life to save a stranger?
Is it rational to risk your life driving to church on Sunday morning?
12. How would you begin to follow Jesus if it became clear to you that Christianity was true? What would be the hardest adjustment you would have to make to live a faithful, public Christian life?
There are enough contradictions and scientific errors in the bible to convince me that Christianity is not true. For example, that bit in Matthew 27:52-53 where we are told that dead people climbed out of their graves and walked around Jerusalem.
And I wouldn't follow Jesus anywhere under any circumstances. Some of his teachings were absolutely horrible.
For example, did you know that Jesus spoke in parables to make sure that outsiders could not understand his message - and he did that specifically to prevent them from being converted and having their sins forgiven. [Mark 4:10-12]
And did you know that he once said that if anyone should speak against him, they should have a millstone tied around their neck and they should be thrown into the ocean and drowned. [Matthew 18:6]
He also said that if anyone loved their family more than Jesus, then they were not fit to be his disciple. [Matthew 10:37]
Again we have the problem of evil - too complicated for me to discuss here.
But we get a hint of the way in which such discussions can be hijacked by Christians with an agenda, when we notice that in the very asking of the question, the blogger has already implied that concepts like justice, fairness and equality, are regarded by atheists as "nothing more than social fads"!
8. In what terms do you define the value of human life? Is the life of a human child more or less valuable, for example, than that of an endangered species of primate?
Once again we have a question that leads directly to the "problem of evil". It seems innocent enough at the moment, but experience tells me that it won't be long before the Christian begins to present ever more difficult scenarios for the atheist to solve.
Right now the blogger is asking the atheist to choose between a human and an animal, but things will get very tricky very quickly.
Eventually both characters (human and animal) will be put into life-threatening situations and the atheist will be asked which one he will save from death.
Still later the Christian will concoct a situation where two humans are in life threatening situations and again, the atheist will be asked which one he would save --- and there will be follow-up questions:
- Why did the atheist save that person and not the other one?
- Why did the atheist let that other person die?
- Does the atheist think he is a god with the power to decide who lives and who dies?
- Is not the atheist just a tad pretentious?
You see why I hesitate to answer these questions?
-----
As it happens, I have never faced a serious 'life or death' situation so I cannot be sure how I will react in any given situation. I would probably act impulsively or instinctively and 'save' the person closest to me and worry about the other person later. Or I might try to help the person in the most dangerous looking situation and hope that the other person can hang on long enough for me to get back to them. Or might panic and do nothing to help anyone. Or I might do something truly heroic. I won't really know until the time comes.
9. Much attention has been given to alleged cognitive biases and “wishful thinking” contributing to religious belief. Do you believe that similar biases (for example, the desire for moral autonomy) play a role in religious nonbelief? If not, what specifically makes atheism immune to these influences?
Here's my definition of an atheist: Someone who does not believe in god
Atheism is not a world view. There is no atheist manifesto. Put me up against another atheist and it is possible that we will disagree on every subject we talk about. The only thing necessarily common to both of us is a lack of belief in god.
Actually, I find it amusing that so many Christians try so hard to make it sound like atheism might be a religion - and then use that assumption to disparage atheism "because it is no better than a religion."
10. Do you believe religion (speaking generally) has had a net positive or a net negative effect on humanity? If the latter, how do you explain the prevalence of religion in evolutionary terms?
My opinion of the effects of religion "generally" is the same as my opinion of the effects of Christianity in particular:
Christians gained political power in the 4th Century AD and the first thing they did was to ban all other religions and kill, imprison, or exile, all those who did not convert to Christianity. Then they burned any non-Christian books they could find. Then they closed the libraries. Then they stopped education for all but the priests and the monks. That was the beginning of the Dark Ages which lasted for 600 years.
Next came 200 years of Christian Crusades against the Muslims.
Then followed 600 years of Inquisitions where heretics, blasphemers, and unbelievers were tortured, imprisoned, and put to death.
Things went quiet for about 150 years after Christianity lost it's political power in the early 19th century, but now we have the fundamentalists trying to take over the schools, preaching against science, and hoping to lead us back into another Dark Age.
So a net negative effect in my opinion.
Regarding the second part of the question: Considering the power yielded by the church during the last 1600 years, it is hardly surprising to find that Christianity is prevalent today. For most of those 1600 years any outspoken non-Christians were killed on the spot! Prevalence is to be expected under those circumstances.
11. Is it rational for you to risk your life to save a stranger?
Is it rational to risk your life driving to church on Sunday morning?
12. How would you begin to follow Jesus if it became clear to you that Christianity was true? What would be the hardest adjustment you would have to make to live a faithful, public Christian life?
There are enough contradictions and scientific errors in the bible to convince me that Christianity is not true. For example, that bit in Matthew 27:52-53 where we are told that dead people climbed out of their graves and walked around Jerusalem.
And I wouldn't follow Jesus anywhere under any circumstances. Some of his teachings were absolutely horrible.
For example, did you know that Jesus spoke in parables to make sure that outsiders could not understand his message - and he did that specifically to prevent them from being converted and having their sins forgiven. [Mark 4:10-12]
And did you know that he once said that if anyone should speak against him, they should have a millstone tied around their neck and they should be thrown into the ocean and drowned. [Matthew 18:6]
He also said that if anyone loved their family more than Jesus, then they were not fit to be his disciple. [Matthew 10:37]
Then he bribed his audience by saying that if they abandoned their families they would be given eternal life. [Luke 18:29-30]
And for those who could not be bribed he threatened them with violence. [Matthew 10:34]
No comments:
Post a Comment