With Easter upon us we enter one of the most religious periods on the year and, as with Christmas, we are treated to endless debates about the historicity and meaning of the events being celebrated. I’ve given our religious brethren a bit of tough time over the past few weekends so thought I’d turn my attention onto atheists this week with a discussion of an argument with an Easter spin.
It has become standard in recent days for atheists to argue that belief in God is akin to belief in the Easter Bunny: both beliefs, so it is claimed, are infantile. So says Richard Dawkins and many of his groupies enthusiastically agree. Of course, being engaged in polemic, they want to smear belief in God and by comparing it with belief in the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus suits their purposes of ridiculing religious belief. By extension religious believers are written off as infantile, unthinking and naïve.
But, is such a comparison fair and rational or is it itself infantile? It seems to me that belief in God is not remotely comparable to belief in the Easter Bunny at all. Some atheists seem to argue that the beliefs are equal because neither God nor the Easter Bunny exist; and therefore believing in either is the same irrational act. But, is there really no difference, even if we grant that neither God nor the Easter Bunny exists? Lets say two physicists sit down to discuss the existence of black holes. Knewton doesn’t believe in them; Einstain does. Would it be fair and rational for Knewton to compare Einstain’s belief in blackholes to belief in the Easter Bunny? Surely not. Alternatively, lets say my aunt lives in Australia and dies, unknown to me. Is my continued belief in her existence comparable to belief in Santa simply by virtue of the fact that both involve beliefs in people that do not exist? Hardly.
Even from an atheist perspective it is odd that belief in God should be compared to belief in the Easter Bunny, except for rhetorical effect or polemical purposes. The reason is that there appear to be some very relevant differences between the beliefs and between the people who hold the beliefs. So, what are these relevant differences?
Firstly, and most importantly, the Easter Bunny is known not to exist. More accurately, we know the Easter Bunny is a fabrication, a fictional story told to children at Easter to make it a more exciting time for them. All sane and rational adults and older children are well aware that this is the case. God, on the other hand, is not known to not exist. Those who talk about God and claim He exists are making serious claims and not knowingly telling stories. Atheists might well think that God does not exist, but they cannot justifiably claim to know that God does not exist, and in my experience atheists rarely if ever claim to know that God doesn’t exist. Rather the typical atheist position is that they are unconvinced by theistic arguments and have no good reason to believe God does exist. It seems patently obvious that the existence of God is a matter of serious intellectual inquiry, even amongst the most intelligent human beings: unlike the existence of the Easter Bunny. Only children and the mentally deranged seriously consider the possibility of the existence of Santa, the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny. And this is a highly relevant difference between the two beliefs.
Secondly, and following from the above, God’s existence is a matter for debate, evidence and argument, and those who hold belief in God usually give arguments and evidence for that belief. There is no moral argument for the existence of Santa. No cosmological argument for the Tooth Fairy. No teleological argument for the existence of the Easter Bunny. No Ontological argument for pixies. In short, no sane and rational human beings will even attempt to defend belief in Santa or the Easter Bunny with reasons and evidence. The proposition “God exists” is therefore in a very different intellectual category. There are serious arguments by serious thinkers for belief in God and the rationality of theism. Of course atheists are not persuaded by such arguments, but that does not warrant the equating of belief in God with belief in the Easter Bunny, and even less so of equating the rationality of those who believe in God with those who believe in Santa.
Thirdly, millions of people past and present have claimed to have had experiences of God or some kind of “sensus divinitatus” (as John Calvin put it), or inner awareness of God or the divine. As far as I’m aware the same cannot be said for the Easter Bunny. No sensus Easter-Bunnicanus has ever been reported. Claims to have experienced God or the divine are not at all incontrovertible evidence to an atheist, but they do provide some further grounds on which to question the equating of belief in God with belief in known fictitious creations of the human mind.
Lastly, belief in Santa, the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy are all infantile beliefs, held (mentally deranged adults aside) solely by children. Rational adults all over the world believe in God. Moreover, many of them come to believe in God after childhood - CS Lewis, Alister McGrath and Antony Flew being a few examples. It is popular to claim that belief in God is something most of us hold just because we were taught it as children. But, even if this is the case, and there are good reasons for denying it, it would not show that there is something wrong with the belief or with those who hold it. After all, we are taught many things in childhood that are true, such as that 1 + 1 = 2. In any event, belief in God is not a throwback to childhood, nor a delusion that should have died out when we gave up belief in the Easter Bunny. It is a much more serious proposition, one entertained by millions, and with plenty of sane, rational and highly intelligent defenders. None of this makes the belief true, but it should surely make us pause for thought before placing it and those who believe it in the same category as belief in the Easter Bunny and those who believe in that proposition. For many theists belief in God is better likened to beliefs such as “1 + 1 = 2,” “I feel happy,” “I see a tree in front of me,” “I am experiencing the love of my partner,” “the external world exists apart from in my own mind,” I had cornflakes for breakfast this morning,” or “other minds exist.” From a theist perspective their belief in God is worlds apart from a child’s belief in Santa, and it is exceedingly odd that some atheists cannot see the differences.
Insofar as these atheists fail to recognise the very obvious differences here they will continue to be written off by theists, and many intelligent atheists, as unthinking dogmatists. If genuine dialogue between atheists and religious believers is to proceed belief in God must be recognised as much more intellectually serious than belief in the Easter Bunny. No arguments will be won and no theists will be convinced on the basis of such a comparison.
To believe in God may be to accept a proposition that is untrue, but to believe in God is not infantile like believing in the Easter Bunny. To claim otherwise is infantile and a stumbling block to proper debate. The argument that theism is comparable to belief in the Easter Bunny could be likened to an Easter egg: looks tempting, smells sweet, but break it open and you soon discover that it’s empty.
Stephen
15 responses so far ↓
1 Alan // Mar 23, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Dear Stephen,
Unfortunately your point 3 brings belief in God out of the realm of belief in Santa and into the realm of belief in UFOs and psychics.
Nevertheless it’s not very common to find bloggers who can put out such straightforward argument like this, on a journalistic level that people can understand. I’m an atheist but enjoyed reading this, now I’ll go back into the archives and see what else I can find!
Thanks again,
Alan
2 Stephen // Mar 24, 2008 at 2:31 am
Alan:
Thanks for responding with your kind comments. I always find writing articles of this kind to be a little hit or miss. It’s different from what I usually write here in terms of both substance and style. I’ve written lots of more philosophical papers on the matter and it’s always a challenge to make them more accessible. I’m glad to find you think I managed it on this occassion. I hope you enjoy the archive too.
Cheers,
Stephen
3 Nalfeshnee // Mar 25, 2008 at 6:36 am
Nicely written, but could you comment on my re-writing of some of your text?
As follows:
“Firstly, and most importantly, God is known not to exist. More accurately, we know that God is a fabrication, a fictional story told to children. All sane and rational adults and older children are well aware that this is the case.”
You may protest that we cannot know that God does not exist.
But exactly the same can be said about anything else concerning which we have no direct means of knowing.
I trust you have heard of Bertran Russell’s teapot.
Just because many more people have stated they believe in something they call God and written at great length about this belief does not in any way tip the scales in favor of the existence of the being that they express belief in.
That is why, I fear, atheists will continue to equate belief in God with belief in any other human creation.
If you want to see things as we see them, then please deliver your proof that the Easter Bunny does not exist.
Only if you can do that can you truly say that God and the Easter Bunny are essentially different concepts.
Cheers,
Ed
P.S. Note that I am not primarily interested here in whether belief in something produces benefits or not. But on that topic, I would have to do some serious research before I could find any jihads being waged in the name of the Easter Bunny.
4 Joe // Mar 25, 2008 at 8:23 am
Hi Stephen, I think you are right about the analogy between God and the Easter Bunny. I also suspect that Dawkins is perfectly well aware of this also, but for his purposes its a great tactic.
In my opinion however, the differences between belief in either are not as far removed as one might think. We know exactly how the Easter Bunny came into being, why it was invented etc etc. An examination of early church history, Gospel criticism etc has always left me with the distinct impression that Jesus was simply a man aroung which a cult emerged. It happens today. How many times have we heard about some mystic curing people, some Buddhist levitating etc etc. Back to your point, yes we cannot know that God doesnt exist in the same sense that the Easter Bunny doesnt exists. There are not on the same epistemological level (is that the correct phraseology?). But for me there isnt a lot of difference.
5 Niall // Mar 25, 2008 at 9:26 am
I see no difference whatsoever between belief in the easter bunny and belief in a deity. For that matter there is absolutely zero difference between belief in Thor, Odin, Zeus, Ra, Osiris, Vishnu, the Flying Spaghetti Monster and any other mythological beast or deity that people have professed a belief in. You cannot prove that any of them do not exist.
“the Easter Bunny is known not to exist” - Is that so? Why not post a proof of this on the blog? You could make EXACTLY the same teleological, epistemological or moral arguments for and against Santa Claus, fairies and any other invisible entity that you like. That you cannot grasp this is exceedingly odd.
Who cares if adults believe in god but not in santa claus? This has no bearing whatsoever on the truth of the matter. Millions of adults believe in the “power” of astrology, tarot card reading or healing crystals. Does that make those beliefs more valid? The number of people who believe in them is also irrelevent. 800+ million people believe in the Hindu gods - How do you equate for that? Are they all wrong whilst you are right?
The reason that they can all be equated with one another is because the evidence is EQUALLY non-existent for all of them. If there is an equal amount of evidence for them, then they are equal propositions.
=>Belief in God is equally as infantile as a belief in Santa Claus
“The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike” Delos McKown
6 Stephen // Mar 25, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Hi guys,
Thanks for the comments. I’ll hopefully be responding directly to each of you when I get some more time tomorrow so check back in a day or so.
S.
7 Stephen // Mar 26, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Dear Niall, Joe & Ed:
You all raise some similar points so you might want to read my replies to the others as well as my reply to you directly in the comments that will follow.
S.
8 Stephen's Reply to Ed // Mar 26, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Hi Ed:
Thanks again for the comments.
You re-write one of my sentences thus:
“Firstly, and most importantly, God is known not to exist. More accurately, we know that God is a fabrication, a fictional story told to children. All sane and rational adults and older children are well aware that this is the case.”
In my original text I had “Easter Bunny” where you now put God, and the point I made was to say that while this is true of the Easter Bunny it is not true of God. I don’t see how your re-writing of my point defeats that argument at all – because we do not know that God is a fabrication or a fictional story told to kids, which is precisely the point.
Now, in anticipation of this point you add:
“But exactly the same can be said about anything else concerning which we have no direct means of knowing. I trust you have heard of Bertran Russell’s teapot.”
It is true that we cannot know that Russell’s teapot does not exist. However, I was careful to qualify my point about the Easter Bunny by saying: “More accurately, we know the Easter Bunny is a fabrication, a fictional story.” In the case of Russell’s teapot although we cannot prove it doesn’t exist, we do know it is a creation of Russell’s mind. The existence of God is different in that we cannot say we know it to be a fabricated story - which is why intellectuals spend time and ink on the matter. It is true that we cannot prove that God doesn’t exist, but this fact doesn’t put the proposition “God exists” in the same epistemological boat as the proposition “the easter bunny exists” or “Russells Giant Teapot exists.” Not only do we know these other things to be creations/fabrications of human beings in a way we don’t know about the proposition “God exists,” but there are also positive arguments given by theists to suggest the existence of such a being. We are justified in not believing in Russell’s teapot for two reasons: (1) We know Russell made it up, and (2) we have no reasons to consider that it might exist. The same doesn’t hold for the proposition “God exists.” The proposition “God exists” is a serious live intellectual option and that on its own is enough to put it in a different category.
You continue:
”Just because many more people have stated they believe in something they call God and written at great length about this belief does not in any way tip the scales in favor of the existence of the being that they express belief in.”
You’ve misunderstood me if you think I was saying that the proposition “God exists” is made more likely by the number of people who hold it. Of course it doesn’t. My point is that it’s odd that so many intelligent people hold what is allegedly an infantile belief. That doesn’t strike me as a terribly plausible explanation for religious belief and I’d be interested in any attempted justifications you might offer for it.
You then say:
“If you want to see things as we see them, then please deliver your proof that the Easter Bunny does not exist.”
I don’t think I can offer such a disproof, but that’s not the point. But for the sake of argument I’ll do as you wish and try to look at this from the point of view of an atheist. Before me stand two adults: one who claims to believe in the Easter Bunny and one who claims to believe in God. Would I treat these two propositions as equal and the people who hold them as equally irrational? I certainly wouldn’t: would you? The theist in front of me might offer arguments along the lines of, say, William Lane Craig’s cosmological argument or Richard Swinburne’s teleological argument, and I can engage with those arguments and take the person who makes them quite seriously. Can I do the same with the proposition “the easter bunny exists”? I don’t think so. I would ignore such a person as a buffoon. Would you put a philosopher like Richard Swinburne in the same category as a lunatic who believes in the Easter Bunny? If so I like to see how you justify that. Of course you might disagree with Richard Swinburne, but why does that mean you must relegate him to the status of “deluded wacko?” It really is an odd view to hold. You might say it’s as odd as holding to the view that the Easter Bunny exists
Your last sentence is a bit odd, perhaps you were running out of steam by this stage:
“Only if you can [prove the Easter Bunny does not exist] can you truly say that God and the Easter Bunny are essentially different concepts.”
The concept of God is different from that of the Easter Bunny by definition. One is rumoured to bring eggs to children at Easter time while the other allegedly created the world: I’d say that’s a pretty different concept. In what why do you think the concepts are essentially the same? Perhaps you mean to say that there is no difference between believing in either concept? In other words, believing in the easter bunny is no different from believing in God if I can‘t disprove the existence of the Easter Bunny? Now, that really is a puzzling point of view. You might as well say that my believing in your existence is the same as believing in the Easter Bunny because I can’t disprove your existence either. You are totally ignoring the point that while both cannot be disproved, (1) we know one is a fabrication and (2) believers in God will usually at least try to offer arguments and reasons for their claims. You might disagree with those arguments but that doesn’t mean that those who accept belief in God are no better than those who believe in the easter bunny. From their perspective they have good reason to believe in God and not in the easter bunny.
That’s all for now, I have two others to attend too.
Stephen
9 Stephen's Reply to Niall // Mar 26, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Niall:
Thanks for taking the time to reply.
You say that you see no difference between belief in the easter bunny and belief in a deity and that you cannot prove that either of them do not exist. You then quote my claim that “the Easter Bunny is known not to exist” and ask me to prove that. That was a bit of unfair editing and selective quoting on your part since you totally ignored my immediate qualification in the next sentence that it is more accurate to say that we know the Easter Bunny is a story, a fabrication, a fairy tale told to children. The same goes for Santa and the tooth fairy. But the difference is that we cannot say the same thing about God, and you’ve rather splendidly missed that point altogether.
Next you write: “Who cares if adults believe in god but not in santa claus? This has no bearing whatsoever on the truth of the matter. Millions of adults believe in the “power” of astrology, tarot card reading or healing crystals. Does that make those beliefs more valid? The number of people who believe in them is also irrelevent. 800+ million people believe in the Hindu gods - How do you equate for that? Are they all wrong whilst you are right?.” I’m not saying that it is true that God exists by virtue of the number of people who believe. I’m not even saying that this makes belief in God rational for all people everywhere who hold it. I’m simply making the point that there is a qualitative difference between belief in the Easter bunny and belief in God, and by extension between those who hold to the former but not the latter. Would you claim that philosophers such as Immanuel Kant, Rene Descartes, Thomas Aquinas, Richard Swinburne and many others are really no better intellectually than those who believe in the existence of the Easter bunny? That strikes me as strange indeed, and I would challenge you to read any number of theistic philosophers and come to the conclusion that their believing in God is no better than believing in the Easter bunny. I’d question your intellectual honesty if you came to that conclusion.
Your response then starts to go a bit awry with the claim that: “The reason that they can all be equated with one another is because the evidence is EQUALLY non-existent for all of them. If there is an equal amount of evidence for them, then they are equal propositions.”
Evidence is equally nonexistent for Santa as for God? I’m surprised you believe that since you sound like an intelligent person. Granted, you may not be convinced by theistic arguments and evidence but it is undeniable that there is far more evidence for the latter than the former: teleological, cosmological, ontological, moral, experiential and many other types of arguments. How do you explain the popularity of theism amongst philosophers of religion if belief in God is in no better shape epistemologically speaking than belief in Santa? Are all these philosophers infantile in your view? That’s quite implausible as an explanation of theistic belief generally let alone theistic belief at the highest academic levels. Why do atheistic philosophers take theistic claims seriously? Surely if they were no more intellectually credible than believing in Santa then atheist philosophers would ignore them. It seems to me that in practical terms atheists treat belief in God very different from belief in Santa or the Easter Bunny, despite frequently equating of the two.
Would you claim that belief in God isn’t rational for anyone? And would you regard all theists as infantile with respect to their believings? I’d be interested to see how you justify that claim prior to hearing why any given theist actually believes in God. Tarring all theistic belief as infantile is in the same boat as those Christians who claim God’s existence to be so obvious that to deny it (ala atheists) is one of the worst sinful self-delusions. The truth is no proper debate can follow from those who hold either view.
S.
10 Stephen's Reply to Joe // Mar 26, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Hi Joe,
It’s good to have another new face around, and in particular a little bit of dissent. I’ll keep my reply to you a bit shorter because you seem to agree with me about the analogy between God and the Easter Bunny.
However, you do claim that the differences aren’t so great. You agree that we know the Easter Bunny is a fabrication, but you mention that an examination of church history (admittedly my least favourite topic during my degree!) might show how beliefs about Jesus were also a fabrication. However, even if you’re correct about that my article is concerned with belief in God - a powerful intelligent creator - rather than beliefs about Jesus so I don’t think your comments do much to weaken the force of my point.
You end my saying that there isn’t a lot of difference between the beliefs, but I‘d be interested to hear you expand on that: what, in your view, is similar about the beliefs? What is similar about those who hold to each of these beliefs?
S.
11 Joe // Mar 26, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Hi Stephen. Good replies. I think you are spot on. In my earlier post I should have said that from my perspective as an unbeliever who thinks that the divine allusions of the gospels are also invented, I dont find a big difference between them. There is no doubt however that they are not on the same level.
12 Joe // Mar 26, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Sorry Stephen I replied before seeing your individual reply to myself. That is a very important qualification. I suppose it shows my own cultural bias that I assumed you meant the Christian God. Talking in a more general sense about a creator, your absolutely right, there isn’t a connection with belief in the Easter bunny. In terms of the divine claims of Jesus Christ in the gospels, I dont find much of a difference because they are both concocted by the human mind from my perspective. Fabricated. The difference I do find is that we know without doubt that the Easter bunny doesnt exist because we can pinpoint the time of the myths development. With Jesus and the gospels it obviously isnt that clear. But in my opinion the divine nature of the gospels, including the miracles etc etc are all fabrications allbeit, of a different era.
PS- I am with you on the early church history. Had to suffer a few modules of it during my degree. I love the history of the gopsels however. Here’s a really good read if your interested.
http://www.holycross.edu/departments/crec/website/resurrection-debate-transcript.pdf
13 Stephen's Reply to Joe // Mar 27, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Thanks for the replies Joe. The case of the gospels throws up another interesting question: to what extent did beliefs about Jesus influence the stories told about him. I’m very interested in “what really happened” and what theory best fits what we know. I’ll be sure to check out your link when I get a bit more time.
Cheers,
S.
14 Ed // Apr 2, 2008 at 6:47 am
Hi Stephen,
Thanks for the taking the time to write such a lengthy reply to my comment.
I have carefully re-read your answer through a number of times.
Here’s my answer to your answer - I’ll see if I can’t hone it down somewhat, so excuse me if I only answer to snippets of your original reply.
My answer has less Bunny in it than before, since I think your answer contains more interesting things to latch on to. But I return to the original theme in my final paragraph.
First:
“We are justified in not believing in Russell’s teapot for two reasons: (1) We know Russell made it up, and (2) we have no reasons to consider that it might exist.”
I believe you are misconstruing Russell here. As I see it, Russell is not asking us to believe or disbelieve his “story”: he is pointing out that you cannot know it does not exist. As I see it, he is, in fact, arguing the exact opposite of what you suggest: he is pointing out that the truth of a statement is independent of its author. Even if you know Russell has invented the idea of the teapot, it cannot be disproven.
To illustrate my point further, imagine that Russell had claimed to be telling the truth - would this have changed the concept at all?
Let us go further. Let us imagine that we knew the authors of the Bible as intimately as we know Russell. Let us imagine that we have statements from them all, severally averring at great length, and each witnessed by ten witnesses that they are telling the truth. Would this really and truly make a difference to the truth of the text they created? I would say (following Hume via Hitchens): no - since what they profess (even with witnesses) is more unlikely than the fact that they are lying or are mistaken.
Secondly, and stepping out on a limb, as far as I am aware (and I must confess to being ill-read) there are no “reasons” for God to exist. There are certainly wishes, desires, hopes, beliefs and ideas about God - but reasons? As Laplace commented, the Universe works well enough without the “God hypothesis”. There are no parts of reality where we need to insert God before we can understand how things work and our place in that system. So what are the reasons that you are referring to here? (And from which system of belief?)
Second:
You comment: “My point is that it’s odd that so many intelligent people hold what is allegedly an infantile belief”.
I think the sentence is a highly “loaded” one: who is to say what is and what isn’t “intelligent” - and are we using “infantile” neutrally to simply mean “child-like” - or pejoratively?
But my answer would be short enough. I would reply by stating: No, I do not find it odd that adult humans possess beliefs that are essentially child-like and mistaken. I am constantly aware of my own ignorance in many subjects - the suggestion that many if not most human adults are mistaken about such a esoteric question is not just unsurprising but even likely.
(Aside concerning Swinburne: Yes, I view his views on the Holocaust as wacko.)
Third:
My response to your entire last paragraph would be:
Yes - God’s actions and those of the Easter Bunny do differ: as conceived, one entity hides eggs, while one entity creates universes. However, since both “sets” of actions are reported and cannot be verified from evidence, I would equate them for the purposes of determining the existence of either being. You say yourself that their actions are “rumoured” and “alleged”: that is precisely my point.
I would prefer to stay with our furry Springtime friend, but if you want a more pertinent example, take the Book of Mormon. That is, essentially, a different set of “allegations” about God. And it adds - for all its evidence-free pages - no more likelihood to God’s existence.
I think I must conclude with stating clearly that I am not interested (here) in what the concept of God or the Easter Bunny “means”. I pointed out in a PS to my last comment that “I am not primarily interested here in whether belief in something produces benefits or not.” I can engage with the idea that the concept of a God may bring more benefit to a human mind that the concept of an Easter Bunny (although not perhaps if that human is aged 5 and has a sweet tooth). But that’s a rather obvious point: it is, after all, the reason why people talk about God more, because they find the concept simply more interesting.
But, as I said, I myself would suggest that belief in something for which there is no evidence is not made stronger by elucidating one’s theories about the object of one’s belief rather than supplying evidence, or data that might lead to evidence.
On that last point, in your reply to Niall you mention the “teleological, cosmological, ontological, moral, experiential and many other types of arguments” for God’s existence.
Arguments, not evidence.
15 Stephen // Apr 3, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Hi Ed,
Cheers for the reply.
OK. Lets have a look at Russells teapot. I think you are right that “Russell is not asking us to believe or disbelieve his “story”: he is pointing out that you cannot know it does not exist.” I fully agree. When faced with the statement from theists “you can’t disprove the existence of God” I think that saying “you can’t disprove the existence of Russell’s teapot” is a devastating rebuttal. I agree that Russell’s teapot is in the same boat as the Easter Bunny, but not the same as God. The reasons I gave in my earlier reply still stand: The former cannot be disproven, but at least we know they were invented, unlike the latter. Moreover, serious arguments and evidence will be advanced by defenders of the latter which are absent from the former claims.
Let’s use your hypothetical and say Russell was indeed making a truth claim about a giant teapot he claimed existed in the cosmos somewhere. Russell would need to tell us how this teapot is to be conceived, secondly what reasons he had to believe it actually exists, and thirdly reasons for us to think he is correct. In the absence of any serious attempt to do so we would rightly claim such a person was deluded. However, theists typically DO give reasons and arguments, and even if you choose to reject them you still in practice take them much more seriously than you do claims about the Easter Bunny or Giant Cosmic Teapots. That’s what I meant when I said that theism is a serious live intellectual option whereas the others are not, and this fact alone makes an enormous difference.
Now, you next say “stepping out on a limb, as far as I am aware (and I must confess to being ill-read) there are no “reasons” for God to exist.” This is an extraordinary admission-cum-statement on your part that seriously baffles me. Effectively you are telling us that there’s no evidence but you haven’t really looked. Why come to such a dogmatic conclusion when by your own admission you are ill-read? It’s on a par with a creationist saying he doesn’t believe in evolution but hasn’t really studied the scientific evidence. Bizarre! Theistic philosophers over centuries have given arguments, reasons and evidence for the existence of God and if you want a few modern philosophers to read you could do worse than the works of Alvin Plantinga, Richard Swinburne or William Lane Craig. There is a whole host of theistic arguments to consider and some in my view give good reason to believe a powerful and intelligent creator exists. They may not convince you but surely must force you to admit that believing in God is in an entirely different category from believing in the Easter Bunny.
In your response to my statement “My point is that it’s odd that so many intelligent people hold what is allegedly an infantile belief” you ask “are we using “infantile” neutrally to simply mean “child-like” - or pejoratively?” Those atheist thinkers who charge theism with being childish – as opposed to child-like – are using the term as an insult. Theists have little problem being told that they are wrong or mistaken, but it’s another thing entirely to be treated as if you’re childish or deluded.
[[Concerning your aside: you say that you “view [Richard Swinburne’s] views on the Holocaust as wacko.] Given that you are “ill-read” have you actually read them, and more importantly read them in the context in which they appear? You alluded earlier to the fact that you had read Hitchens, who is one of several modern day atheist writers, along with Richard Dawkins, who has grossly misrepresented the views of Swinburne. I wonder is your analysis of Swinburne coloured by these writers? Dawkins accuses Richard Swinburne of trying to justify the Holocaust which is a horrendous misrepresentation and a dangerous accusation to throw at a well respected academic philosopher. It makes it sound like Swinburne thinks the Holocaust was ultimately a good thing which of course he doesn’t hold at all. In Swinburne’s eyes it’s an evil and the reason he discusses it is because of how grossly evil it is. His concern is to answer the question as to how theists can believe in an all-loving God despite God allowing things like the Holocaust to happen. In other words, following a long tradition of philosophers Swinburne is replying to the “problem of evil.” Why do you think his views are “wacko.” Can you quote him for me, preferably not “via Dawkins” or “via Hitchens?”]]
Now onto the last point:
In a nutshell (or eggshell to keep with our Easter bunny theme) it boils down to you lumping God in with the Easter Bunny because, you claim, the existence of neither can be “verified.” You claim: “I would suggest that belief in something for which there is no evidence is not made stronger by elucidating one’s theories about the object of one’s belief rather than supplying evidence, or data that might lead to evidence.”
I don’t know you all that well, but I suspect you believe in the existence of the external world and the past, and yet neither of these beliefs can be “verified.” We cannot know that the world didn’t pop into existence 5 minutes ago and yet nevertheless we believe it didn’t. Nor is there any evidence for us to believe that the world outside of our own mind exists, and yet you probably do in fact believe in that too. I believe this computer in front of me exists, but on what evidence? I see it – but how do I know my sensory apparatus is working properly? The skeptic always wins because in the history of philosophy no-one has succeeded in proving, or even in giving non-circular evidence for the existence of the external world or the past. If you want to have a go then I’d be interested in your offerings.
But there is an even more fundamental issue: you use the word “verified” without asking the question “verified by who?” Of course, to someone who is “ill-read” it’s difficult to verify anything. Millions of theists think there is indeed good evidence and hold that God’s existence is indeed verifiable, and yet you talk as if the non-verifiability of God’s existence is a given fact rather than a disputed assertion. There have been a lot of arguments given for theistic belief “teleological, cosmological, ontological, moral, experiential and many other types of arguments.” You claim that these are arguments rather than evidence but I would say your distinction is misguided. Arguments such as teleological and cosmological arguments are based on evidence. Arguments take facts (evidence, if you like) about the world and then attempt to draw conclusions from them. If a version of the cosmological argument, for instance, is successful then God’s existence will have been demonstrated despite the fact you seem to think it is “only” an argument.
Lets go back to the physicists I mention in my original article: one believes in black holes and other does not. Is it justifiable for Einstain to write off Knewton’s belief in black holes as the same as belief in the Easter bunny. Knewton maybe has several “physics” arguments for the existence of black holes, but Einstain isn’t persuaded. Even still, can’t Einstain still respect Knewton for honestly dealing with the evidence and holding a view that (although Einstain disagrees with) is arrived at with intellectual rigour? Why must the matter degenerate into name calling and insult?
That’ll do for now.
Cheers,
S.
Leave a Comment