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?

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?
 

Logical Reason #1: We are just another species.

I simply cannot justify human behavior under any belief system that includes a god or gods.  I will refer mostly to Christianity, since that is the system with which I am most familiar.  First of all, if we are made in god's image, then god must be somewhat of a douche bag.  One of life's ageless philosophical questions is this:  Are humans more good or evil by nature?   I don't tend to think in extremes like that, but if forced, I would have to say evil.  I say this because I have met few (if any) people who put the needs of others above or even on equal ground with their own.  If we are made "in god's image," then god is selfish.

Secondly, I have to touch on one of the classic atheist arguments.  If god is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good, why is there so much pain and suffering?  This is a good question.  I know it's a multi-faceted question that deals with the nature of god, the nature of goodness, freewill, etc.  But for the purpose of this post, I'll keep it simple.  If god is all these things, or even just two of them, then I cannot make sense of human behavior and the state of the world.

However, (and here's where my reason really begins), I can TOTALLY justify human behavior as the product of another species in the throes of evolutionary change and progress.  Do you watch nature shows?  I have a love/hate relationship with them.  I love to learn about animal behavior.  I love the beauty and diversity of nature.  I love seeing animals in their native habitat doing what instinct and the need for survival drives them to do.  However, I hate seeing the cheetah chase and kill the gazelle.  I hate when young animals get separated from their pack and I can see their death is imminent.  I hate watching two males fight to injury or death or at least humiliation for the right of being the leader or for mating rights to a female.  But then I think, "This is nature.  This is survival of the fittest.  This is how species propagate."  And one day it hit me.  Humans are just another species.  We are territorial.  We want to protect our young and propagate our species.  We are born into a certain role in the natural world and it is often very difficult for us to see outside that role.

While I recognize that we are a superior species because we have a more developed brain which allows us to develop intricate communication systems, use tools, create art, make music, philosophize, etc, I also recognize that we are animals with the drive to survive just like all the rest.  As stated in this article in Science Daily, "The problem is that the process of natural selection tends to produce individuals that do the best for themselves." We are selfish and territorial and aggressive because it serves us to be that way.   Fortunately, some of us have also found that it serves us to cooperate and compromise and build community (as have other species in nature, including yeast...see this interesting article).  Some of this community building ends up being detrimental in the long run, but that is for a future post.

In a nutshell, here's my first reason for being an atheist: I can accept human behavior as a product of evolutionary forces, but not as a product of any personal god.