“I don’t know” never means God did it.

This morning my 5:30AM toilet visit was entertained by this status:

image

I’m not complaining. I needed some motivation to shit. Thanks, oh enlightened one…

I replied to it with only two words: False dichotomy. Do I need to explain all the faults here? Here are a few of them…

  1. The opposite of creation is not some other kind of creation.
  2. The opposite of “I don’t know” is not creation by an intelligent designer. There is no opposite to it.
  3. The argument from first cause simply moves the problem to a magical answer named god that is assumed not to have a cause, violating it’s own premise (Everything has a cause and the first cause is god, but god does not have a cause), but is defined as something you are not supposed to question. In other words, special pleading.

As with all such arguments, the theist believes he knows his god is real. Now there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. That’s literally what faith is. And as long as you are making a statement about your faith, it’s all good. But you shouldn’t pretend to be logical.

There’s nothing logical about starting with your assumed conclusion and working backwards. It’s intellectually dishonest. I know this is what’s going on because I used to be a believer. Since the person is indoctrinated, he assumes his god exists, then does not admit it but instead uses motivated reasoning to come up with a pseudo-logical argument that comes to conclude what he assumed upfront. (That was not enough for me. Fundamentally that is why I lost my faith as a teenager.)

Making that leap is equivalent to writing the non sequitur, “One plus one is equal to two. Therefore dogs are better than cats.” There is no logical connection between the two sentences, other than the one in the brain of my hypothetical person in this analogy. Likewise, every argument for a god does exactly what my example does… but usually in a way that jumps through a few more hoops. Bullshit baffles brains and the verbosity and/or apparent sophistication of such arguments fool the ignorant as well as those who make the same assumption. But such “logic” isn’t logical at all and never fools anyone who actually can think critically about the subject.

When you examine the arguments raised in this poll, they are very weak. God is nothing more than an alternative to “I don’t know” and is synonymous with magic. In other words, magical thinking.

On Pascal’s wager

Pascal’s wager is something I had never heard of until yesterday. It is an excellent example of a false dilemma, also known as a false dichotomy.

Essentially, it states that it is better to believe in God than to risk eternity in Hell. From the rational wiki link, it can be summarized as:

  1. If you believe in God and God does exist, you will be rewarded with eternal life in heaven: thus an infinite gain.
  2. If you do not believe in God and God does exist, you will be condemned to remain in hell forever: thus an infinite loss.
  3. If you believe in God and God does not exist, you will not be rewarded: thus a finite loss.
  4. If you do not believe in God and God does not exist, you will not be rewarded, but you have lived your own life: thus a finite gain.

It can be tabulated as:

God exists God does not exist
Believe in God Infinite gain in heaven Insignificant loss
Disbelieve in God Infinite loss in hell Insignificant gain

But there are a number of problems with this wager:

  1. Which god should I wager on?
  2. I don’t know about you, but I can’t believe something just because I choose to believe it.
  3. If there is a god, would he not know that I chose to believe rather than believed sincerely?
  4. Why would god reward me for belief alone, and punish me for disbelief?

Which God should I wager on?

Pascal’s wager starts with the implicit assumption that the god he already worshipped, the Christian god, is the one true god. This oversimplifies the options into a binary choice. Either god will reward you or punish you. But the only difference between theists with different gods is that they were brought up and taught – indoctrinated – to believe in their god. Every religion has good (and bad) people. All are equally sincere, and all are convinced that their god is the true god, and all other gods are false. There is no way of knowing which god is the right god (though personally, I don’t believe in any of them), and there is no way of knowing if the true god might punish you for worshipping a false god. In fact, all Abrahamic religions teach you that you will go to hell if you don’t believe in their particular god.

Thus the seemingly simple gain versus risk binary choice falls away. With thousands of gods to choose from, even if one of them was correct, the probability of choosing the correct one is negligible.

I don’t know about you, but I can’t believe something just because I choose to believe it.

This one should not require further explanation. If you hold a gun to my head I might profess belief in whatever you ask, but I won’t really believe it. I can’t just switch on belief.

If there is a god, would he not know that I chose to believe rather than believed sincerely?

Surely an omnipotent, all-powerful, all-knowing god would know that I was faking it. Maybe his ego is so almighty he wouldn’t care?

Why would god reward me for belief alone, and punish me for disbelief?

There have been plenty of atrocities committed by people who believed in god. Even Adolf Hitler was sincere in his belief. Is he in heaven now? Maybe his Christian god is the true one and is rewarding him for punishing all those worshippers of the wrong god? Seriously, this is absurd. I am good to other people and try to live the best life I can because I have empathy for others. My morals didn’t come from any religion, and I didn’t stop caring about my fellow humanity when I lost my faith in god. On the contrary, I have no excuse for racism, misogyny, homophobia, or any other prejudice. Sincere believers have used their religion to justify all manner of injustice, and even if there was a god, which I’m certain there is not, I can not believe that those people would be rewarded just for believing.