Whatcism Part II: Atheism Part 1

I know that this is not the first Hub to explore the subject; nor will it be the last. What I will not do is provide an in-depth analysis of what atheism is and its history. What I will do, however, is work out arguments that pertain to my exploration. This will hopefully appeal to others and answer their questions as well.

Atheism. Wow. What a word.

Atheism.

What does it mean? Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines it as “a disbelief in the existence of deity” and “the doctrine that there is no deity.” Not wanting to take one book’s word for it (and because my mother always called me stubborn), I dug further.

I read a book (well, I haven’t finished it yet, but I will…I promise) by Geoffery Berg called The Six Ways of Atheism: New Logical Disproofs on the Existence of God (2009). Aside from the fact that I am surprised it is not thicker, I found It funny that I have heard these theories discussed and/or have even ascribed to at least one myself at one point or another.

I

One of the theories I found interesting was called ‘The Aggregate Qualities’ argument. Basically, this argument says that there is no possibility that a being could be in possession of the amount of power needed to be God; therefore, there is no God. God is supposed to be omnipotent, omniscient, immortal, all good, the creator. Being raised Catholic, I am roughly going off what I learned growing up. The likelihood that any one being in the universe possesses the qualities attributed to God is low; “An infinitesimal chance” (Berg, p.29). Berg goes on to say, statistically speaking “a merely hypothetical infinitesimal chance can in effect be treated as the no chance to which it approximates very closely (p.29).

II

Due to man’s finiteness and God’s supposed infiniteness, man could not comprehend God if he did exist; man could not “recognize God or even know that God exists” (p. 50). What Berg calls "the Man and God Comprehension Gulf” argument, says that the definition that has been set forth to describe God encapsulates so much that, if a being such as that actually existed, we would not be able to comprehend him. This is an interesting argument. Somewhat following from the first argument in that if there is a possibility that God exists, then he exists. In an answer to that, I bring up the miracles. What are miracles then? Are they not God’s ‘proof’ to man that he is there, that he is watching over us? If God wants us to know he is there, that he is watching over us, why not come down and have dinner with us? God need not be so cryptic, so condescending as to send a blind man or a homeless family to test how caring we are. I remember an interesting question: why do Christians or Catholics doubt the things that can be proven by science (Dinosaurs, for one), but use miracles (things that are notorious for being unprovable) as proof for God and use them as justification for their faith?

I keep going back to ‘him testing us.’ I do not think we need to be tested. Everything that I have learned about caring, nurturing, and consideration for others, I could have learned somewhere else; most of it, I did. When we have priests molesting altar boys; when we have people killing in the name of God; when we have people who 'believe' in God so much that they, not only single out people for God’s hatred derived from passages from the Bible, they have their kids deliver their message of hatred, I am surprised there are not more atheists in the world. If you listen to part 2 of the debate between Christopher Hitchens and William Lane Craig, towards the tail end, he touches on this. He seems to ascribe morals to God and to religion. I will touch on this point in a later installment.

Read Whatcism III: Atheism Part II: Ayn Rand, morals and ethics