THE ATHEIST MANIFESTO
Before debating the existence of God, it is necessary to define him. The God I grew up with was a pretty specific dude. He had a personal entity, with his own set of characteristics. He had a name, a purpose, and one hell of a temper.
It was very easy to dispose of him. You see, he claimed to be all-knowing, all-powerful, and perfect in every way. He then proceeded to write a book that was full of holes.
But, others have postulated a much more elusive God – a distant God, who is remote from humans. Some persons have diluted the concept to the point where they consider God to be the nature of the universe. This guy is much harder to nail down.
Some of the most intelligent people I have encountered claim to be agnostic. I suppose this is the safest bet, because it covers all possibilities. But, it really seems pointless to me. An agnostic basically defines God out of existence, making him such an insubstantial creature that his essence is neither provable nor meaningful. An agnostic doesn’t actually believe in God. He just hasn’t completely closed the door to some sort of surprise. Basically, an agnostic is an atheist without any balls – my apologies to my agnostic friends. I can say this because I’m not worried about being beaten up by agnostics, because well, they don’t have any balls.
I am a fundamentalist atheist.
First of all, if you define God too loosely, he doesn’t have any meaning. He is irrelevant, so why bother with him at all. The idea might as well go away. Secondly, if you define him concretely, he can be disproved. Either way, we can make God go away.
Let’s make God go away.
The dictionary defines God as “the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship”. I like this definition. I would also add that he (or she or it) would have some sort of personal superhuman presence.
The Argument for God
Over the years, people have postulated many arguments for the existence of God. Let’s examine some of them and see if they hold water.
The Argument from Design: The most common reasoning that I encounter is that the order in nature indicates that someone ordered it. Therefore, there must be a supreme being. A common illustration is of a man walking on the beach. He encounters a watch. Would he think that the watch was formed by the random forces of nature? Of course not. That would be foolish. Yet, we look at the order and complexity of the human body, the animal kingdom, the beauty of our plant, and the vastness and complexity of the universe, and think it came about by chance – absurd!
Well, there are more than a few holes in this reasoning. For example, how does one define order? I can watch crystals forming spontaneously. They are complex and ordered, yet they are not arranged by anyone. They form because they follow simple rules (actually conveniences more than rules), and repeat them many times. On the other hand, I can look at my pen, which is simpler than a crystal, and know that it was manufactured. How do I know that? It is because I have seen pens before and I know where they come from. In other words, we recognize design, because we know which items in our society have been designed. If I see a completely alien item, I would not know if it were designed or formed naturally. So, are humans formed by the repetition of basic universal rules, or were they designed? The answer is that we can’t tell by looking at them.
Additionally, this argument ignores the fact that humans reproduce, whereas watches do not. Reproduction introduces variations and selection into the mix. Humans can and do change spontaneously over the generations. We can see it happening. Watches do not change spontaneously over the generations. We can see it not happening.
The biggest flaw in the argument from design is that it leads to an infinite regression. If the universe is so ordered that it could only have come from a superior creator, then how much more must that creator be ordered? If humans must have been designed, then God certainly must have been designed… and his God, and his God, and so on, with each one being more complex than the previous. You can’t just switch off the logic at an arbitrary point. If logic demands that order requires a creator, then the creator must have a creator.
Evolution and creation begin at the same point – Something came from nothing. The universe is simpler than God. So, if something had to come from nothing, it might as well have been the universe. Evolution wins this round because it has no need for an unnecessary middle step.
The Argument from Incredulity: Another common argument is that people just can’t fathom that something came about by chance. Commonly cited somethings are the hand and the eye. If humans can’t explain something, then it must come from a higher power.
This isn’t much of an argument, and it is appropriately labeled “the argument from ignorance”, reasoning that if you don’t know something, it must be supernatural. The insulting connotation of the label is unintentional, but appropriate.
The Perfect Fit Argument: Many times, I have been told that it is too much to think that the universe could fit together so well, simply by chance. Why, if the earth was just a little closer to the sun, or the atmosphere had just a slightly different composition, life could not be sustained. Plants and animals are not just functional, but also beautiful, and in some cases delicious. The odds of all of these things coinciding are infinitesimal. How could this happen by chance?
I would like to refute this argument by borrowing an illustration from Douglas Adams. If you freeze a puddle of water and lift it up, you will find that the contours of the puddle perfectly fit the shape of the hole it is in. Uncanny, isn’t it? What are the odds of a puddle with exactly that shape, finding a hole with precisely the same shape? The odds of the water molecules accidentally forming themselves into that exact shape boggle the mind. Therefore all puddles are designed.
The point is that we fit our environment because we evolved to fit it. We breathe the composition of air that the earth produces, because that was the only way we could develop. We inter-depend on other species and life forms because that was the only way we could develop. And, if the earth were closer to the sun, well, there would be no life on earth, just as there is no life on Mercury and a hundred million other planets.
Finally, the fit is not perfect. There are many flaws in our design, and in the design of our planet. Fortunately, they are not fatal flaws, but enough to nullify the argument.
The perfect fit argument is poorly conceived.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics: I can’t count the number of times that this law has been quoted to me by fundamentalists posing as engineering experts, most of whom couldn’t define thermodynamics if their life depended on it. To put it simply, the argument asserts that the second law of thermodynamics requires systems to increase in entropy over time. In other words, if left completely on their own, things decay, disintegrate, and become more random. So, evolution violates this law by proposing that life has ordered itself, actually becoming less random, all by itself. Creation, on the other hand, supports this law, because it begins with a state of ultimate order.
The first refutation involves the poor definition given by creationists. The second law of thermodynamics actually states: "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body."
One of the problems with this is that the idea that order does not come from disorder is actually a spurious addition and simplistic misapplication of the law. We see seemingly spontaneous order all the time – snowflakes, crystals, sand dunes, etc. So, the second law does not say what creationists claim that it says. If order cannot come from disorder, why does it keep happening?
The other problem is that even if we grant them their definition, it would only hold true in a closed system. The earth is not a closed system. Huge amounts of energy are added to our earth every second of the day, in multiple forms, such as heat, light, and radiation. We are also affected by the forces of external gravity and momentum.
So, the second law of thermodynamics does not indicate a creator. This claim shows a complete lack of understanding, not only of the law that it cites, but also of the nature of evolution.
The Argument Against God
The Evidence for evolution
If we evolved, what would you expect to see? Well, I would expect to see the occasional spontaneous extinction as the environment changes (over 99% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct). I would expect to see mutations and adaptations (like the ever-mutating cold virus). I would expect to see survival of the fittest in action (like wolves culling a deer herd). I would expect to see the occasional evolutionary throwback (like a furry person). I would expect to see evolutionary remnants (like our plantaris muscle). I would expect to see junk DNA. I would expect to see genetic similarities within and between species. I would expect to see a fossil record showing early and intermediate stages of life and development. I would also expect the fossil record to be incomplete and confusing, because it was formed by ever-changing conditions and ravaged by time.
In other words, I would expect to see exactly what I do see.
Where the Hell is He?
What I don’t see is God.
I can prove that I exist. You can physically test my body. You can communicate with me. I can make things happen. I’m just an ordinary guy, yet no one doubts my existence. But, God is almighty, all-knowing, and ever- present. With conspicuous attributes like that, how can his presence be in doubt?
Where the hell is he? If he just showed up, we could end this debate.
Documentation
The God concept with which I was raised came complete with a set of documentation. As I have shown in this book, the documentation is pretty damning. It is filled with errors, contradictions, and moral and logical flaws. It makes specific claims about history that can be categorically disproved, such as the creation account, the flood myth, and the origin of languages. It demonstrates a scientific knowledge equivalent to a bronze age sheepherder, which is pretty surprising for someone who knows everything, and pretty suspicious, considering how the book was transmitted to us.
I realize that this only deals with my own childhood God, and everyone’s may be different, but for me, it was God’s own word that killed God.
The Evolution of God
If we look back over the history of civilization, we find plenty of evidence for evolution. Even God seems to have evolved. We can study his progression from simple tribal God, to a pantheon of nature Gods, to an all powerful single God. We can observe him splitting his evil side off into a separate being. We can watch him convert from a God of wrath and war to a God of love.
In other words, people have made God in their image.
The Existence of Evil
One of the oldest arguments against God is the existence of evil. I will not pretend to give this one a thorough debate, since it has already filled countless volumes, and I only have a few paragraphs for it.
Basically, if God is perfect, and everything he does is perfect, and he made everything, then why do bad things happen? And, when they do happen, if God is loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing, why doesn’t he help?
These are strong arguments that require considerable rationalization to explain. Personally, I have never been satisfied with the answers. If you were God, and you witnessed children going to the ovens in Auschwitz, could you do nothing?
Can I Prove That God Does Not Exist?
No. Next question.
Actually, I will spend a little more time on this one. How can I prove the existence of an incorporeal being? Everything I test comes up blank. He has no physical characteristics to measure. He does not respond to communication. He has had no impact on any part of the universe.
Is it reasonable to believe in something simply because it cannot be disproved? If I claim that there is a chocolate cake orbiting the sun somewhere in the asteroid belt, would you believe me? You can’t prove there isn’t one. And, even if you did, I would simply clarify that my claim was for a spiritual chocolate cake.
Whether we realize it or not, we all require evidence for our beliefs. And, the more outrageous the idea, the more evidence we require. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Yet, the extraordinary claims regarding God come with no evidence at all.
The world is filled with an infinite number of ideas. I don’t believe every one that cannot be disproved. I need some sort of indication – anything – that something is a fact before I can consider it.
A Call to Action
Well, no manifesto is complete without some sort of an action plan, which is a bit of a problem, because atheists tend to be free thinkers and non-militant. We’re all over the intellectual map, and we are not susceptible to being roused by our God to convert or kill the infidels.
So, I will begin with an invitation to my agnostic cousins to throw off the shackles of indecision and join their atheist brethren in the light of truth and certainty. I will invite my atheist comrades to spread the gospel of atheism to the farthest reaches of the planet, preferably by buying copies of my book. I will not challenge my religious foes to a deliberation to the death, because they have a little problem with comprehension, and I’m afraid of where that one might end up.
Finally, I would like to conclude by quoting one of my heroes. Carl Sagan wrote the introduction to an edition of Steven Hawking’s A Brief History of Time. In the last paragraph he said:
“This is also a book about God … or perhaps about the absence of God. The word God fills these pages. Hawking embarks on a quest to answer Einstein’s famous question about whether God had any choice creating the universe. Hawking is attempting, as he explicitly states, to understand the mind of God. And this makes all the more unexpected the conclusion of the effort, at least so far: a universe with no edge in space, no beginning or end in time, and nothing for a creator to do.”