Logical Reason #4: Evidence! Evidence! Evidence!

This reason dovetails with reason #3.  We have evidence from science that supports evolution, the laws of the universe, how species reproduce, the formation of mountains, the appearance of rainbows, weather patterns, the life and death of dinosaurs, etc.  Every day, new discoveries are made and more knowledge about our world is gained.  On the other hand, it seems to me that the evidence for religion was never there.  The arguments that theists often present as evidence are weak and emotionally-charged at best; totally ridiculous brainwashing at their worst.

I remember once, when I was in college (I'm embarrassed to admit), I had been at a Campus Crusade for Christ meeting talking about creation versus evolution.  I don't think they were arguing completely against evolution, but I remember being encouraged to "keep an open mind" and to remember that we really don't know the true nature and motives of god.  As a result of the discussion, I remember seriously considering that dinosaur bones and the fossil record might be the work of a (brace yourselves) humorous or (even worse) sneaky god who simply wanted to test our faith.  I know!!!  I can't believe my train of thought drove through that tunnel either.  It's embarrassing to admit, but a good reminder of how easily religion and the resulting group-think can influence a person's sensibilities.

I recently joined the Happy Atheist Forum where I am enjoying reading and occasionally taking part in discussions about everything from religion to parenting to scientific innovation.  Some theists regularly put in their two cents, only to be consistently schooled by the atheists.  I like to think that I can be somewhat objective since I've been on both sides of the argument.  It seems clear to me that atheists (myself included) want evidence and refuse to take things on blind faith.  The theists, even the well-spoken ones, continue to present the same arguments, which always come back (at some point) to faith.  I have to quote one of my fellow forum members here.  He wrote, "I often used to think that if god DID exist, then it was HIS failure that I didn't believe. I could never accept blind faith and refused to be ruled by it."  Why would any god make us scientific, knowledge-seeking beings, then expect us to go against our nature and believe without proof?  And for a god who could create the universe, it would've been so easy to put some indisputable, or at least less disputable proof.  Carl Sagan, in The God Hypothesis, gave the following ideas for some pretty convincing evidence: 1) God could've put some very important phrases into the good book that would've only made sense as human beings progressed.  "Ancient Babylonian science is the cosmology that is still enshrined in the book of Genesis.  Suppose instead the story was 'Don't forget, the sun is a star.'...You'll understand this later."  2)God could've embedded important parts of the bible elsewhere in the universe for scientists to discover later.  "God could have engraved the Ten Commandments on the Moon.  Large.  Ten km across per commandment."

While Sagan is clearly making light of this lack of obvious evidence, his point can't be mistaken.  If god made the world, why didn't he build evidence of himself into it so his existence couldn't be doubted?  Why didn't he sign his work of art?

A few pressing issues before I get to Reason #4

First of all, Sarah Palin has decided NOT to run for president.  Phew!  I would really have to consider relocating to a new country if she was every put in charge of this one.  Check out this humorous (but scary) prediction for a country under her control.  In this article from BBC News, she is quoted as writing in a letter to her supporters, "After much prayer and serious consideration, I have decided that I will not be seeking the 2012 GOP nomination for President of the United States."  I find it interesting that her version of god doesn't encourage her to run for president, but somehow guided her and her child into reality television.  Hmmm...I'm guessing tv shows pay quite a bit more than presidency.


Secondly, I was a bit disappointed at my place of work today.  I work for a community college teaching college-prep reading and writing.  On one of the bulletin boards in the hallway, I saw a poster for a talk titled "Darwin or Design: A Viable Alternative."  The talk is being given by a zoologist who plans to show evidence for Intelligent Design.  This alone bothers me because it isn't a viable option--at least not scientifically.  It's a PC version of creationism.  But I guess what bothered me the most was the fine print: "Sponsored by Campus Crusade for Christ"--no surprise there--"Funded by student fees."  Doesn't this seem fishy?  (pun, anyone?)  To me, it seems wrong because it's clearly a religiously-charged topic being funded with student fees and not all students are religious.  But I'm a critical thinker and I tend to challenge my own stance on issues.  I think I do this to solidify my real opinion.  Anyway, I checked out the club list and there are clubs for women, Latin American students, parents, etc.  So is this just another club that everyone isn't going to join, but has every right to exist and sponsor discussions (with the help of student fees) that are clearly biased?  Or does the religious factor change things?  Please comment.  I'm a bit at a loss and I don't want to let my own belief system keep me from being objective in this situation.  I might try to go to the talk if I can find someone to watch my kiddos.  Call it morbid curiosity...


Finally, here is an addendum to my previous post: Logical Reason #3.  This article talks about the possibility that Earth's water initially came from cometary impacts.  The god of the gaps just got a little smaller.

Logical Reason #3: Science is slowly explaining away the likelihood of a creator.

   Recently, I went to a community discussion about religion and science.  The event had a panel made up of a biologist, an anthropologist, and a pastor.  The discussion centered around the theories of Natural Selection and Intelligent Design.  After each member of the panel gave a little speech/lecture, the audience was encouraged to discuss certain questions.  One question was this, "Why do you think Darwin's theory has been so controversial within the religious community?" or something along those lines.  My answer went something like this, "First of all, natural selection goes a long way in explaining away the need to believe in a creator, and believers, understandably, don't like that."  Sure, we don't yet know how the origin of life first happened, but scientific knowledge is constantly expanding, and I'm guessing we'll have a viable scientific answer in my lifetime.  "Secondly, if there was a creator, why set in motion a process that takes billions of years and includes the complete eradication of species.  Why not just create a perfect world with perfect species that don't need to 'evolve'?"  I'm guessing that unless you are a total literal and fundamentalist Bible thumper, you can't argue that species have evolved and continue to do so.  I'm guessing you believe that dinosaurs did exist.  I'm also guessing that you see how the argument for a creator has "evolved" from a literal interpretation of the world being created in a week, to the softened, science-friendly (if only pseudo-science), politically-huggable theory of intelligent design.  Yes, things look designed.  They look designed because over many years nature has selected for the most perfect design within each species.

   If you want to see both sides of the argument, check out this website to see an elaborate argument for Intelligent Design (ID).  Here's another interesting series of articles from National Geographic that gives voice to ID's best arguments against Darwin's theory with a short but convincing counter-argument from evolutionists.  Finally, here's an article that states, plain and simple, that intelligent design, while interesting philosophical debate fodder, is not science and shouldn't be taught in schools because it is wrong.

   Throughout history, and especially recent history, science has slowly explained away god.  People used to think lightning and thunder was the work of the gods.  They used to think that gods moved the planets across the skies.  They used to think a sneeze was our soul trying to exit or a demon trying to enter.  Science has given us logical explanations for these common occurrences.  God is still used to explain many of the gaps in our knowledge.  So, with each scientific advance, isn't god simply getting smaller?