Watch this creationist if you can handle the stupid.
Quite simply the most disgusting display of the stupid virus I’ve seen in a long, long time. I’m not going to even attempt to address her because it will degenerate into a litany of how incredibly stupid this woman is, such as how Charles Darwin didn’t use no scientific method, or how the entire world appeared fully formed billions of years ago, and how (irony!) unlikely it is for the world to just pop into existence complete with plants, animals, and people. I will instead try to present a more rational discussion of the argument between atheism and creationism so that both sides can understand why A) 99.9% of creationists have got the stupid virus. Some of them have it BAD, like this young lady. B) Atheism and evolution are not synonymous, but I would venture to bet that all atheists credit evolution with the status as by far the most probable explanation for the origin of life on earth. C) Evolution is not a theory of metaphysics, and D) It is possible to have an argument for God that is not dripping with the stupid virus, but it doesn’t look even remotely like the arguments fielded by creationists and religious people today because, as I said earlier, the vast majority of them are outrightly stupid and proud of it.
Firstly, the video link above doesn’t even make a reasonable attempt to represent any of the arguments it claims to attack. If there was such a person who created an argument along the lines of the one she is outlining, atheists would line up to take a whack at them. Perhaps because the argument she outlines looks EXACTLY like the creationist argument, only it occurs much earlier chronologically, and there’s no god. In order to have a reasonable debate, you first have to understand the argument you are taking a stance against. The only thing worse than a straw man argument is a straw man argument by someone who honestly doesn’t understand that they’re knocking down a straw man. Then they proudly look to their authority figures like a child who just built a sandcastle. That wasn’t an argument, that was you creating an argument that has even fewer legs to stand on than your own, and then proceeding to bash it to bits with crummy logic, however the starting proposition was so ridiculous that the audience doesn’t even need the explanation. The explanation becomes little more than theatre, as priests and missionaries will understand thoroughly if they’re any good at their jobs. This is not how scientists think, though. For scientists, there exists some truth which they can find, and which other scientists can similarly find independently. As a result, as the number of scientists increases, the reliability of their findings as a community will (hopefully) improve as well. This of course falls flat if there is not an assumption of universality and of equality of function between humans. By contrast, if the Pope has a direct line to God and everybody else has to talk up the chain of command, the Pope could theoretically run very different experiments than anyone else could to determine the structure of the universe.
Now on to some more substantive concepts. Atheism is not the same thing as evolution, not by a long chalk. Atheism is the belief that there is no god. I suppose atheism could qualify as a theory considering any tests you run for the existence of god return negative, which count as positive proof for the reciprocal argument, but its label is irrelevant. Atheism is a theological statement. Evolution is the theory of biology, not theology or metaphysics. It is the logical result of three factors: 1) a population with differing properties between its constituents, 2) a method for increasing the quantity of that population which draws upon its current members (in most biologies, sex- sometimes asexual), and 3) a method for altering the properties of the population between generations. This role is also filled by sex, but mutations also have a marginal effect. If you accept that those three things exist, then evolution as a theory is already a given. The Bible itself contains enough evidence for evolution in the bloodlines it describes where one family member inherits properties of another. That’s it, the chicken’s done. We have evolution. Evolution as a broader theory explains the immense diversity of life based on small changes in individual species over large timescales which eventually stack up to create significantly different species. All this bullshit about how “my granddaddy wasn’t no monkey” is A) wrong because whatever ancestor we both inherit from probably looked very different from modern monkeys, B) wrong because such a creature would be a different species entirely from humans, most likely, meaning in the context of the human species identity we are no longer related, and C) wrong because this basically constitutes a failure to accept obvious proof on the grounds that it might discredit you or your family or be otherwise uncomfortable. This woman is attacking her straw doppelgangers of evolution and atheism like they are synonymous, which is itself an absurd proposition. Now, atheists being atheists and failing to accept the assertion that God exists because there’s no evidence for it, are shall we say rather likely to also support the theory of evolution considering the immense amount of evidence backing it. Moreover, religion will oppose evolution because it is a viable and self-sufficient alternative to religion. Evolution requires no help from God or some other agent to explain the nature of the world, in a similar way that the Big Bang theory requires no God in order to explain the nature of the cosmos. In similar fashion, the idea that the earth isn’t the center of the universe is, well, was jarring to the religious because it detracts from the earth’s special status as God’s chosen planet. Even the most stupid-virus afflicted creationist has gotten the picture on that score, however. Although perhaps I shouldn’t speak so soon because you can find someone prepared to believe anything these days. Well, if you don’t believe the earth is round and orbits the sun, you are beyond fucking help pal. The fact that you can’t actually be packed off to an asylum on “religious” grounds I find highly amusing, though. But if you try anything really psycho with me or mine, expect to get hurt, badly, because I am far smarter than you.
Evolution’s lack of metaphysical explanation is something most creationists cannot understand. By creationist ideology, ANY assertion about the world must be metaphysical. Metaphysics has its place, but in day-to-day affairs, metaphysics really doesn’t do much, usually. This is one of the reasons why creationism can grab people so powerfully, because any assertion about the world at all will require challenging that person’s most basic presuppositions about the world. By “going to root” immediately, the amount of work required to even consider the thought of a slightly different world is much greater than for a scientifically-minded individual. A scientist can easily conceive of one specific piece of errata being wrong, while the entire model as a whole being functional. It is entirely possible for us to be wrong about, or flatly not know exactly how every animal evolved from every ancient creature in all of history, but still accept the theory of evolution. For religion, however, any given single aspect of errata must be correct. Therefore, challenging that single piece of errata will resolve to a challenge of that person’s metaphysics and most basic ideology. People have died over whether the bread and water taken at communion is the body of christ, or whether it is, metaphorically, the body of christ. Because challenging any assertion in a religion constitutes a challenge of the fundamental truth of the religion. In the case of the people who accept the fundamental truth unconditionally, this means only shaking their most deeply-held roots will convince them of even the smallest thing, and such a shaking will likely be effective at completely changing their entire ideology. This also serves to help a religion by preserving homogeneity among its believers, which is a powerful tool for social pressure based conversions. The religions that people practiced because they were pleasant and easygoing have all gone the way of the Quakers. I bring up the Quakers frequently because I think that they are memetically very interesting because they didn’t use the most effective and widely used today methods to acquire converts, and they’re all but extinct now. However, I’m not going into that for now.
Lastly, and this is the topic I intend to focus the most on, is it possible to have an argument for the existence of God that is actually intelligent and reasonable? Right off, I’m going to say that most of the people who want to prove the Bible and common creationism or most religions that I know of, no. It is impossible to make a case for a particular religion which includes a text of stories such as the Bible. Invariably, they are filled to a comic level with contradiction, which by definition cannot exist in reality, among other reasons. However it is possible to have an intelligent philosophical argument about whether or not there is a God, or even many Gods. What is a god, and what properties must such a being necessarily have to constitute a god? If there was a god, how would that change the metaphysics of the world as we know it? What broad categories of metaphysics require, make possible, or render impossible the existence of a God or gods?
My favorite argument for the existence of God is called the ontological argument, because it’s just fun. Basically, it goes like this: can you conceive of a being that is all-perfect? Yes. Ergo, there exists a God.
Smiling now. It’s an amazing argument isn’t it? Short, sweet, and to the point. Now, it happens to be sound but in a very interesting way. Basically, on a deeper level the argument is that a perfect being would be more perfect if it exists. Therefore, an all-perfect being must exist because you can conceive of a being that is all-perfect. I think this argument is philosophically interesting, but of zero metaphysical consequence, and doesn’t actually prove that there is a god. It’s pretty easy to poke fun at this argument by parodying it with a pair of children, “Can you think of a big-huge candy bar?” “Yeah?!?” “Well, wouldn’t it be even better if it existed?” “Yeah!” “Therefore, there exists a big-huge candy bar.” A fun argument because even atheists who are experienced at arguing against the existence of God will be completely stumped. Well-read atheists will of course have heard of it and probably be able to call you on using the ontological argument by name. Now, there are as many writings on why the argument is valid or absurd as there are philosophers, but I think that it’s wrong because it uses a premise-truth paradox. This is an extremely rare form of paradox whereby the premise creates a paradox whereby if it is true then it must necessarily be true, and if it is false then it must necessarily be false, and there is no other criteria by which you can judge the truth or falsehood of the premise. So, can you conceive of a being that is all-perfect? I would say the answer is probably not. You can create a generic entity and slap the label “all-perfect” on it, but that doesn’t count.
An argument similar to the ontological argument whose name I can’t remember for the moment stems from an interesting application of modal logic, using possible worlds. Basically, any logician would give you as axiomatic that there exists at least one possible world where some form of something that could be called a God exists. Jumping from there to conclude that God must therefore exist in all possible worlds because God is omnipresent and all-powerful is one tactic you might use to throw an atheist. With a little logical discipline they will quickly understand how you’ve cheated them. Basically, they gave you that there exists some possible world on the grounds that, and this is of course exactly how modal logic is created, that these worlds are global-strength containers that nothing within them can possibly escape from or otherwise influence other possible worlds. Taking advantage of their generosity in giving you “some form of something that is God” in one possible world to say that because it is omnipresent, it therefore exists in all possible worlds is to cheat on the application of modal logic by putting God in some world that contains all possible worlds, axiomatically, and without the consent of the person you’re arguing with. Don’t use this, please. An atheist who doesn’t figure that one out might want to take a class on logic to make their thinking a bit more rigorous.
These are canonical examples of arguments for God. They aren’t perfect, but I am an atheist exactly because I can’t think of a good argument for why God exists. That’s where you come in. If you are religious, come up with a well-reasoned, solid argument for why God exists. If you can’t do it, hen you should be an atheist too because you don’t believe God exists either. If you can, however, tell it to atheists. If it really is a good argument, and they’re really atheists for the right reasons, they will actually believe you. If I were presented with such an argument that was sufficiently good that it outperformed the default position of atheism, and also explained all the observable phenomena of the world without contradiction, I might even believe you. Do not, however, even attempt to push Christianity or other religions as-is on me because it’s frankly not worth my time anymore. If you’re interested in atheism there are resources all over the internet. They don’t really exist offline, which is fascinating if you ask me. Atheists correlate with the tech-savvy young? Cool. We’re going to win. Even if we can’t convince you, we’re young. You’re going to go first.
Not considering the idea of immortality in digital form, which of course is out of the question for the religious. So atheists still win. The atheists shall outnumber the hordes of the faceless dead, such shall be the glory of their technology.