Anthropic Arrogance — March, 2008
I am not an evangelist for atheism. It is wholly unimportant to me what your stance on theism is so long as we can coexist peacefully in mutual respect. This isn’t because I don’t care. I do care. And I find the topic intensely interesting. I don’t incite personal arguments about faith because they are rarely productive and rarely conducive to lasting mutual respect. When someone bothers to ask me, I reveal my atheism. When someone attacks my lack of faith, I respond in kind. When a state modifies its school curricula to mandate mythology in classrooms, I rant. But I will not approach family, friend, acquaintance, or stranger and say, “You should really stop believing in this god fellow because it bothers me.” Your position on faith is born of the sum of your life’s experiences. It would therefore be rather presumptuous of me to believe I could change your mind with a few discussions.
Understand then, my position on the matter is born of the sum of my life’s experiences. And it is equally presumptuous of others to believe they will change my position on the matter with a few discussions. To the extent others find my lack of faith shortsighted and heretical, I find their faith ignorant and inane. We must agree to disagree and leave it at that. There presently exists no way to prove or disprove either position, and therefore, we are each able to settle on the side of the debate we feel is best supported by a preponderance of the evidence. I personally do not believe in the existence of a god. I have never in my life seen the slightest evidence to suggest one exists or is necessary.
It amazes me how upset and uncomfortable this makes some people. While on occasion others find this fact about me wholly uninteresting and unsurprising, many are immediately beside themselves with disbelief and anger. The dissonance is palpable, and I’m often subjected to a tirade of arguments. I’m told I’m overlooking life’s miracles. I’m told I’m too nice a person to be an atheist. I’m told I just need to have faith. I’m told I just don’t understand faith. I’m told a bunch of things based on tremendous emotion but lacking any evidentiary air. Therefore, the tirade does nothing to sway me because it does nothing to alter the sum of my life’s experiences, my understanding of life, or my understanding of the universe.
But lately, on more than one occasion, I’ve been told my atheism represents an absurd stance because it is an arrogant philosophy. So I started pondering this. Coming from a theist involved in the argument, the statement “Atheism is arrogant” may be meant to mean one of several things:
- Atheism is inherently arrogant, and therefore, god exists.
- The atheist’s personal beliefs on the origins of the universe and humanity are in opposition to the theist’s personal beliefs. By virtue of this opposition, the atheist’s beliefs are arrogant.
- It is arrogant to claim an understanding of the complexity of the universe and humanity in the absence of a theory involving a god.
I hope we can all agree number 1 is nonsensical and unsupportable. It bears mentioning only because it closely resembles versions of the ontological argument for the existence of god.
Number 2 is more interesting. But it presupposes a special protected status for theism. While historically this protected status was real—enforced through exile, torture, persecution, and execution—in the U.S., topics of faith and religion are now every bit as open to analysis and criticism as politics. Therefore today, we can enter into a debate in which our arguments are evaluated on their individual merits. And I’ve mentioned already that while this debate is intensely interesting, neither the existence nor the non-existence of a god can presently be conclusively proven. We are therefore left to agree to disagree. And while I personally tend to be pedantic when cornered on this topic, the position of the atheist is not arrogant simply because it is different than the theist’s.
I am therefore inclined to believe most intelligent people using the “Atheism is arrogant” argument are concerning themselves with the concept presented in number 3. That is, anyone claiming to understand the universe and humanity in the absence of a theory involving a god are making an arrogant claim. And on this topic I wish to dwell a bit. Allow me, for the sake of argument, to agree atheism is arrogant. Temporarily allowing this assumption, I offer the following course of logic:
- By virtue of the vast complexity of the universe and humanity, it is arrogant to claim an understanding of such in the absence of a theory involving a god.
- Any god capable of creating a complex universe and a complex humanity must be orders of magnitude more complex than these creations.
- Theists of many denominations claim to know god.
- Claiming an understanding of the creator of something too complex to be understood is orders of magnitude more arrogant than claiming to understand the paltry creation of said creator.
- Theism is orders of magnitude more arrogant than atheism.
The theist will discount or dismiss this course of logic. The most likely argument being, “god works in mysterious ways,” and therefore, can’t be understood. But this argument fails to disprove the course of logic in that neither theists nor atheists claim to know the entirety of their respective explanations for the nature of the universe. To wit: theists claim to know some things about god, atheists claim to know some things about science. At this point in human history, neither party knows, or should claim to know, the entirety of the universe’s explanation.
The profound difference between theistic and atheistic explanations for the universe and humanity is that scientific explanations are testable. Science tests its theories continuously, with repeatable results at any period in history. And when the evidence contradicts the scientific theory, the theory is reviewed or discarded. In contrast, no experiment has gathered verifiable proof for any theistic theory of the universe or humanity. No astronomical observation has ever supported the theistic hypothesis of the earth being the center of the universe. No geological observation has ever supported the theistic hypothesis of the earth being only 6,000 years old. Positively nothing indicates man came into spontaneous being around the same time. No experiment has ever proven pre-marital sex will result in posthumous residence in hell. No experiment has ever proven avoiding the consumption of meat on certain Fridays will result in posthumous residence in heaven. In fact, theistic claims for the nature of the universe and humanity are rarely tested at all. They are simply stated, asserted strongly without evidence, and reinforced under the threat of shame and hell for anyone who disbelieves.
So let us consider a hypothetical experiment to test one of theism’s claims regarding the nature of humanity. Suppose we set up an experiment to test the Catholic assertion that condoms are frowned upon by god and therefore bad for humanity. We shall design our experiment thusly:
Hypothesis: Abstention from the use of condoms will earn favor in god’s eyes and earn the believer everlasting life in heaven. Use of condoms will irk god and earn the non-believer everlasting life in hell.
Null Hypothesis: The use or non-use of condoms will have no bearing whatsoever on the disposition of an individual’s soul.
Control: We shall only collect data on those whose lives outside the issue of condom use are lived beyond reproach in god’s eyes. In so doing, we shall test only the influence of condom use on eternal bliss or damnation.
I’ve chosen this particular experiment as a basis for argument because, conveniently, it has already been run. Mother Theresa, in the name of the Catholic Church, ran this experiment in various places on the African continent. To date, no verifiable data have been collected to support the Hypothesis. Because the experiment is still running, and has been influenced by the efforts of other groups in recent years, I will not presently conclude we should accept the Null Hypothesis, either. I will, however, point out that while this experiment has run, millions have contracted and died of AIDS; millions of women forced into sexual subservience have been blessed with unwanted children; millions of unsupportable children have been born to die of disease or starvation; and millions more will die.
So let us review which is more arrogant—theism or atheism:
Atheists: Atheists are often pedantic and occasionally condescending, to be sure. But scientific theories are based on observations of the real world. Scientific theories can be tested through experiments whose results are repeatable, and which are reviewed for accuracy when contradictory evidence is found. Scientific theories meld well to form a greater understanding of the universe and humanity. And when science tells us the ratio of electromagnetic repulsion between electrons is 1039 times greater than the gravitational attraction between them, no one dies.
Theists: Theists are are often uncompromisingly dogmatic and occasionally homicidal, to be sure. Theistic theories are based on fantastical pieces of literature. Theistic theories can not be tested through experiments. Theistic theories do not meld well to form a coherent understanding of the universe, but rather, are frequently contradictory. Theistic theories change through the generations to ensure they are not so off-putting as to hinder totals in the collection basket. And when clergy tell us masturbation will earn you everlasting life in hell, sexually-repressed individuals rape little kids.
So I would say the arrogance of theism is 10∞ times greater than the arrogance of atheism. And it has to be, or I wouldn’t be writing this. How’s that for an anthropic coincidence?
~ topher
Update—April 30th, 2008:
If you happened to pick up the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on April 29th, 2008, I hope you were as disgusted as I was to read about the death of Madeline Neumann, an 11-year-old Wisconsin girl whose diabetes went untreated. It went untreated because it was never diagnosed. It was never diagnosed because Madeline was never taken to a doctor. Despite Madeline's rapid weight loss, cyanotic legs, lack of appetite, inability to retain fluids, inability to walk, and eventual loss of consciousness, Madeline's disillusioned parents believed she was simply having a "spiritual attack."
Madeline's parents, who moved from California to Wisconsin to open a ministry/coffee shop, recently abandoned their belief in science, preferring instead to solve all problems through prayer—including the healing of complex metabolic disorders in children, apparently. Because of their arrogant adherence to unsupportable theistic theories, their child is now dead and their other children are without a sister.
"We stayed by her side nonstop and we prayed," said Leilani Neumann, Madeline's mother. And therein lies the problem. Like many theists, Madeline's parents know precious little about their own faith, but rather, rely solely on ideas passed to them by parents, friends, and religious leaders without doing any independent learning or research on their own. Had Madeline's parents performed even the most cursory research on the effectiveness of intercessory prayer (prayer to improve the health of the ill), they would have found studies conducted by the Templeton Foundation—a research organization dedicated to scientific discoveries related to faith and spirituality. And these studies would have told them unequivocally that intercessory prayer has never had any demonstrated positive effect on the recovery of the ill. In fact, for purely psychological reasons, prayer may actually hinder the recovery of the ill. If you care to read about these studies, I've uploaded the reports for you below.
But the point is this: ask questions, folks. There is no such thing as magic. A god who intercedes in our daily lives would have to, at some point, cross the chasm between the metaphysical world and the physical world to impart influence on the physical world. No evidence for such an influence from beyond has ever been found. And allowing children—children who aren't given their own choice, mind you—to die because of blind, misunderstood faith is just about the most arrogant thing I can think of.
References:
Glauber, Bill. Parents Charged In Diabetes Death. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. April 29, 2008.