Friday, July 24, 2015

6 Questions Christians are Always Asking Atheists

6 Questions Christians Ask Atheists

Let’s imagine a story. There’s an invisible being that follows you wherever you go. It watches you constantly—inside and out. It knows your thoughts before you think them. It claims to love you unconditionally, but that love comes with a chilling twist: if you don’t love it back in the precise way it demands, it will punish you for eternity. No questions asked. No appeals granted.

This being, omniscient and omnipotent, rewards obedience with occasional wishes and emotional highs, but punishes dissent—even silent thoughts—with infinite torment. If you follow it with unwavering loyalty, you’ll spend forever worshipping at its feet. But if you dare to question it? You’re damned.

And yet, this story isn’t found in ancient mythology or dystopian fiction—it’s often the centerpiece of modern religion. This is the context many atheists are asked to accept without evidence, and when we don’t, we’re called arrogant, rebellious, or lost.

Here are six common questions Christians ask atheists—and how we might thoughtfully respond.


1. “Can you prove there is no God?”

No, and that’s not how logic works. If I told you I had a unicorn in my garage, would the burden fall on you to disprove it? Or would it fall on me to show the unicorn?

The burden of proof always lies with the one making the claim. That’s true in science, law, and common sense. As the great Carl Sagan put it: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” If you’re claiming that an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving supernatural being governs the universe—one who listens to prayers, reads minds, and tracks your every thought—you need to bring compelling evidence to the table.

Atheism is not a claim to know with certainty that no gods exist. It’s a position that says: “I have not seen sufficient evidence to believe that any do.” It’s not about arrogance; it’s about intellectual honesty.


2. “Are you angry at God? Are you rebelling?”

This one always makes me smile. Asking if I’m angry at God is like asking if I’m angry at Bigfoot or the Tooth Fairy. How could I be angry at something I don’t believe exists?

I’m no more rebelling against the Christian God than I am against Zeus, Odin, or Santa Claus. Just as Christians don’t believe in Vishnu or Thor, atheists don’t believe in any deity—including the one that happens to be culturally dominant in their part of the world.

When we reject belief, it’s not a rebellion. It’s a conclusion based on reason, evidence, and the courage to ask hard questions.


3. “How can you see a sunset and not believe in God?”

Sunsets are beautiful. They inspire awe, reflection, and peace. But a sunset is not evidence of the divine—it's evidence of science: of Earth’s rotation, atmospheric particles, and the bending of light.

Claiming that a sunset proves God’s existence is like claiming that thunder proves the anger of Thor, or that the ocean’s tide proves Poseidon’s presence. Nature’s beauty and mystery don’t automatically imply magic.

Understanding the mechanics behind a sunset doesn’t diminish its beauty. If anything, it deepens our wonder. The universe is vast and stunning and profoundly intricate—and understanding it through science only makes it more miraculous, not less.


4. “If you experienced what I have, would you believe?”

I probably have. Many atheists were once deeply religious. I was raised Christian. I prayed. I felt spiritual euphoria. I spoke in tongues. I cried during worship. I believed I had a relationship with Jesus. I felt the “presence of God.”

But emotions are not evidence of truth. People across every religion and cult experience the same overwhelming feelings—Muslims, Hindus, Sufis, Mormons, even followers of destructive cults like Jonestown. Spiritual highs are part of our neurological wiring. They don’t confirm which belief is “true.”

So yes, I’ve experienced what you have. The real question is—have you experienced what I have? Have you allowed yourself to question deeply held beliefs? Have you ever stood on the edge of uncertainty and chosen to build a worldview based on logic, empathy, and inquiry?


5. “What if you’re wrong? Isn’t it better to be safe than sorry?”

This is Pascal’s Wager in disguise: the idea that it’s better to believe “just in case.” But here’s the problem: there are thousands of gods humans have worshipped. Which one do we hedge our bets on?

Your belief system likely reflects where you were born and who raised you. If you were born in India, you might be Hindu. In Iran, Muslim. In Utah, Mormon. So who’s to say which deity is “the right one”?

If I fake belief to be “safe,” that’s not faith—it’s fear. And if your god is omniscient, wouldn’t he know I was faking it?

And what if you’re wrong? What if there is no afterlife—and this life, this fleeting, miraculous life, is all we get? What a tragedy it would be to spend it living for someone else’s expectations instead of your own.


6. “How can you have morality without God?”

Morality doesn’t come from religion. It comes from empathy, social cooperation, and cultural evolution. Babies aren’t born with morality—they learn it. Feral children, raised without human contact, don’t develop a sense of right or wrong. Morality is taught, refined, and, at its best, questioned.

Some people follow moral rules only when they believe they’re being watched by a divine enforcer. That’s not morality—that’s obedience.

True morality asks, “What causes harm? What’s fair? How would I feel in someone else’s shoes?” It grows beyond cultural norms. Otherwise, slavery, misogyny, and genocide—all of which were once justified by religious doctrine—would still be “moral.”

The most moral people I’ve met weren’t driven by fear of hell or hope of heaven. They were driven by love, reason, and responsibility.


Final Thoughts

Being an atheist doesn’t mean living without awe, purpose, or values. In fact, for many of us, it deepens those things. When you realize there’s no cosmic parent cleaning up your mess, you take more care with your life. When you believe this life is all there is, you savor it more. You love more fiercely. You fight harder for justice.

The world is already full of magic—real, tangible, breathtaking magic. The sound of laughter. The rhythm of the tides. The endless dance of galaxies. We don’t need invisible creatures to explain it.

All we need is curiosity, compassion, and the courage to keep asking honest questions—even when the answers are hard.

Thursday, July 23, 2015

How Can Atheists Have Morality Without God?



Image by tdietmut via Flickr

All organisms demonstrate a tendency to avoid harm. Even amoeba will avoid aversive stimuli. This is one of the basic premises of behavioral psychology's operant conditioning. Behaviors that yield pleasing results tend to be repeated. Behaviors that yield aversive results tend to be avoided. Amoebas have no need for morality, only self-preservation.

Unlike amoeba, humans are social animals requiring the assistance of other humans in order to survive in the natural environment. For humans, self-preservation is interdependent with preservation of "the tribe."

Other social animals like wolves, lions, and buffalo will often behave in ways that promote the health and safety of the group over the health and safety of the individual. These animals engage in what might be considered benevolent behaviors even without the benefit of higher cognitive functioning.

To my knowledge, humans are the only species capable of higher order empathy. Empathy does not mean sympathy. Many species demonstrate sympathy. For our purposes, we will define sympathy as feeling sad when one observes the suffering of others. Sympathy is often a very natural response and requires no effort. Conversely, higher order empathy is a complex skill requiring development and practice. We will define higher order empathy as the cognitive attempt to deeply understand an issue from another's viewpoint. With huge effort, it is possible to put our collective ego aside and on some level understand the world from another person's perspective.

Babies have no morality. Morality is a learned behavior. Feral child research has shown that children who are not exposed to other humans do not develop a moral sense.[1] Research on feral children reveals that empathy is a learned behavior. Proficiency in higher order empathy demands levels of maturity, commitment, and metacognition few attempt to achieve. If humans developed and regularly employed higher order empathy skills, conflict with each other and the destruction of other species could be virtually eliminated.

We begin to socialize very young children by rewarding culturally acceptable behaviors and punishing culturally unacceptable behaviors. The moral rules for a culture will come from external sources like parents, teachers, religious texts, laws, etc.[2]

At first, children will follow the rules whenever a rule enforcer is watching, but will break the rules when they feel there will be no consequences. Adults who remain at this level of moral development are categorized as sociopaths.[3]

Older children will internalize the rules and will self-regulate their behavior, because they wish to be a “good boy/girl.” This is the stage of moral development where much of humanity remains. Christian doctrine requires adherents to progress no further. At this level one can easily navigate one’s social environment.[4] However, individuals at this level of moral development are merely reflecting the culture in which they were raised. So, an individual reared in Nazi Germany would feel perfectly moral in following the norms of that culture. In the 1800s, a rural Southerner in the US might feel perfectly moral as he/she enslaves another human being. Modern Christians might feel perfectly moral in the mistreatment of homosexuals.

People at the highest level of moral development will test the rules of their respective cultures against certain universal litmus’ such as “justice, ... reciprocity and equality of human rights, and... respect for the dignity of human beings as individual persons.”[5] [6] Religious dogma can be an obstacle to achieving the highest level of moral development, when the moral code must be accepted and never challenged. People at the highest level morally transcend time and place and achieve a moral sense that can override cultural programming. 






[1] "Feral Children and Clever Animals: Reflections on Human Nature." Choice Reviews Online 31.08 (1994): 31-4641. Web.
[2] Hoffman, Martin Leon, and Lois Norma Wladis Hoffman. Review of Child Development Research. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1964. Print
[3] https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201305/how-spot-sociopath
[4] "Kohlberg - Moral Development | Simply Psychology." Kohlberg - Moral Development | Simply Psychology. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Feb. 2015.
[5] "TheTheoryofMoralDevelopment." Docstoc.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Mar. 2015.
[6] Duska, R.: and Whelan, M. Piaget- and Kohlberg. Moral Education. A Guig.e to New York: Paulist Press, 1975

Wednesday, July 22, 2015

4 Steps to Clean Thinking




1. Accept Being Wrong

In order to effectively navigate life the human mind is designed to constantly take shortcuts. The brain uses tiny bits of data, a few pieces of a given puzzle, and then compensates for the missing pieces with its “best guess.” The result is a tendency for humans to be wrong… a lot!

Optical illusions are possible, because the brain automatically fills in the spots where visual information is missing by using patterns and expectations from past experience. [1] In other words, what you think you see may not be what is actually out there!

If you blindfold someone, hold and apple under her nose, and have her bite a piece of raw potato, she will be fooled into thinking she bit a piece of apple. The brain takes a small amount of information, smell and texture, and makes a judgment, "I must have bitten an apple." [2]

This also happens when we meet new people. We know very little about the new acquaintance, but quickly judge his character, "He seems dishonest." When we get to know him, reality fills in the blanks and we find that he is extremely trustworthy.[3]

There is a direct correlation between how easily you overcome your own biases (traps that lead to being wrong) and IQ level. The smarter you are, the easier it is to overcome your biases (accepting that you are wrong).[4] 

Critical thinkers examine issues from many different angles, so the world operates more in shades of gray, than of black and white. Being wrong feels exactly like being right... until someone PROVES you are wrong.[5]

2. Beware of Cognitive Traps

There are many ways we fool ourselves into believing in things that are absolutely not true. Many cognitive traps are just side effects of how humans are wired. Because they tend to crop up in all people, these traps require diligent work on our part to overcome. 

Confirmation Bias is a trap wherein you believe that you have determined a "truth" based on rational thinking, but in actuality, you have simply dismissed all evidence disputing your pre-existing belief and accepted all information confirming said belief.

Example 1: You don't believe in global warming, so you disregard the 97% of climatologists who support global warming and accept the 3% who dispute this phenomenon. You may reason that there is a conspiracy (a catch-all explanation that is very rarely accurate).[6] 

Example 2: You think immunizations cause autism, so you disregard the avalanche of research supporting the efficacy of immunization, but believe the one flawed study linking vaccines to autism. You reason that there is a conspiracy.[7] 

Hindsight Bias is a trap based on the idea that people should be able to predict the future. Have you ever been stumped by a riddle and after hearing the solution you thought, “Wow, that was so obvious. I should have easily figured it out”? In truth, since you do not have the ability to predict the future, the solution to the riddle was certainly NOT obvious.[8] 

Empathy Bias is similar to hindsight bias, but is projected on others rather than self. If a friend is in a bad relationship, it may seem obvious to you that your friend should end the relationship. You may consider her reluctance to do so, as “stupid.” However, when you, yourself have been in bad relationships, this “obvious” solution of breaking it off was not so clear. Why was your friend’s relationship problem so easy for you to solve, and your relationship problem so difficult? When you have real empathy, you make a sincere attempt to understand things from the other person’s perspective.[9 You try to "stand in their shoes." This is especially difficult when you perceive that the other person is different from you (eg different nationality, different race, different religion, different sexual orientation, etc.).

3. Trust Evidence Over Emotion

In some ways, humans are not very different from lower animal species. We almost always operate from “gut feelings,” or emotions. After making an emotional judgment, we create rationalizations (poorly reasoned arguments) to justify why these feelings, and resulting beliefs, are accurate. 

To whatever degree possible, critical thinkers start from a neutral position and do not invest their respective egos in pre-existing beliefs. Good critical thinkers allow the evidence to determine the accuracy of a piece of information. Ego, “because it is my thought it must be true,” is by far the biggest obstacle to rational thinking. 

Overcoming the ego obstacle requires that truth, as determined by objective evidence, always take precedence over our instinctual need to be right. All it takes is a lifetime of practice.

4. Learn to Metacognate

Metacognition means, “thinking about your own thought processes.” Most of us have the tendency to allow our emotion thoughts to lead us around by the nose. Dumb animals operate in this manner. This tendency to attach our egos to the accuracy of our gut feelings is a root cause for ignorance.

If our failsafe is to assume that our thought processes are always accurate, we remain trapped in a bubble of ignorance. 

Fortunately, if we consistently apply humble skepticism, logic, and metacognition, humans can escape the intellectual prison created by blind trust gut feelings.







[2] http://www.education.com/science-fair/article/apples-and-potatoes/
[3] http://www.united-academics.org/magazine/homefeat/bias-bonanza-how-accurate-are-our-first-impressions/
[4] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1041608007000611
[6] http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus                 
[7] http://www2.aap.org/immunization/families/faq/vaccinestudies.pdf
[8] http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/i-knew-it-all-along-didnt-i-understanding-hindsight-bias.html

[9] http://www.cbdr.cmu.edu/event.asp?eventID=268

Wednesday, July 1, 2015

Atheist or Agnostic or Neither or Both?


a·the·ist - a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. 

ag·nos·tic - a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

Atheism answers the question, “Do you believe god/s exist?” This should be distinguished from the common misconception that atheism answers the question, "Does god/s exist?" It does not. 

The evidence for the existence of all 4000 of the gods and goddesses people have worshiped from the beginning of recorded time is identical:

  1. Personal, spiritual experiences that have led to an intuitive sense or "gut feeling" that the god/s or goddess/es in question are real.
  2. Many other people within a given culture, especially respected people in positions of authority (parents, ministers, educators, political officials), share a belief in said god/s.
  3. Stories passed on through the spoken or written word stating the existence of the god/s in question.

Since Christian God, Muslim God, the Greek gods, the Roman gods, the Nordic gods, the gods from shamanistic cultures, and so on are all validated subjectively, they each have an equal likelihood of existing.

One could easily make up stories of a newly invented god and convince others to believe them. And, this would result in the same spiritual “feelings” that validate the existence of established gods (think Scientology or Moonies). Therefore, any absurdity conjured up by the human mind has the same likelihood of existing as any of the gods and goddesses worshiped by humans.

So, based on the unimaginably low probability that established or newly invented gods are real, the atheist makes the claim, “I don’t believe god/s exist.”

Agnosticism answers a different question, “Can we know if god/s exist?” Agnostic is also a term that needs some clarification. Many consider the agnostic a fence sitter who thinks that god/s' existence is as likely as not.

In a universe of infinite time and space, anything is possible. We truly cannot know for certain that god/s do not exist. We cannot know for certain that fairies, smurfs, and leprechauns do not exist. It is possible that invisible horses with Snoopy heads exist in a place called Woowoo. The probability that this scenario is true is astronomically low. However, it is the exact same likelihood that Thor and Odin exist in a place called Valhalla or that the Christian and Muslim gods exist in a place called Heaven.

So, the agnostic states that he/she cannot know if god/s exist, but does not necessarily consider the likelihood of existence equal to that of non-existence. And, the atheist states that, based on the available evidence, he/she does not believe god/s exist.