12 Answers to Why Something Exists Rather Than Nothing

After surveying twelve possible answers Michael Shermer ends by saying:

In the meantime, while scientists sort out the science to answer the question Why is there something instead of nothing?, in addition to reviewing these dozen answers it is also okay to say “I don’t know” and keep searching. There is no need to turn to supernatural answers just to fulfill an emotional need for explanation. Like nature, the mind abhors a vacuum, but sometimes it is better to admit ignorance than feign certainty about which one knows not. If there is one lesson that the history of science has taught us it is that it is arrogant to think that we now know enough to know that we cannot know. Science is young. Let us have the courage to admit our ignorance and to keep searching for answers to these deepest questions. Link.

PZ Myers Apologizes!

Yep, that's right, although it isn't exactly what some people had demanded. Below is PZ's video response to Thunderf00t explaining why he was kicked off Freethought Blogs. Then Thunderf00t responded. I think this whole episode is over. People can make up their own minds about it. But it illustrates something very important about what people do when we are emotionally engaged. As far as I know, no one is exempt. These two videos are proof positive that when someone is seen opposing what someone else holds dear, "the critical thinking portion of their brain effectively shuts down," as Kel quipped earlier.

Beliefs, Habits, Doubt, Love, Jealousy, Sexism, Racism-- and Why God is NOT Love

 Habits, we all have them—some good and some bad--and our habits are our tendencies or dispositions to act in certain ways in certain situations. It is our beliefs, or what we hold to be true (even if it isn't) that shape our habits. Being taught that blacks and women are inferior for instance, shaped the “belief” that they are—even if this is not true--which results in the “habitual discrimination” of women and people of color. This is where doubt comes in.

Image of the Virgin Mary Appears on Tree in West New York

WEST NEW YORK, N.J. "People are flocking to a tree in northern New Jersey where some say they see the image of the Virgin Mary. Makeshift shrines have sprung up by the tree.
People have been praying, crying and leaving flowers and candles as they look at the small opening where the bark was stripped away.
A fence and other barricades also have been set up around the tree, which is in a sidewalk along a commercial strip." (AP News)

This also is the mentality of Christian faith represented by some of the people who come to DC to argue for the truth of the Bible. (If believers can see the Virgin Mary in a damaged tree trunk, it sure didn’t take as much imagination to claim Jesus arose from the dead!)

Biblical contradictions and the Christian mind

Recently, elsewhere, I have been discussing the contradictions of the Bible. Many are fairly irrelevant in the scheme of things and don’t really invalidate the core claims of the Bible, only the claims of inerrancy. What it does show, however, is the rationalisation process of the average Christian. Not only is the process hilarious to watch, but the answers given vary so widely amongst defenders of inerrancy (and even amongst liberal defenders who instinctively try to protect the Bible's accuracy) that it seems fairly obvious as to the ad hoc nature of the defences.

One such example is the use of Gadarenes and Gerasenes which I will look into in more depth in this post and show how bad such attempted harmonisations can be.

A Look Back at the Demographics of Unbelief, by Tom Flynn

We seem to be poised on the threshold of a bright new era in which nonreligious Americans will be properly studied by the social sciences. What better time to review what we know about the various flavors of religious nonaffiliation and nonbelief? And what better time to review the facts and fallacies that have shaped American assumptions regarding irreligion in the past? Link.

Problems with the Fine-Tuning Argument

Here are some notes I made some time ago, based on various sources, some of which are linked below. Richard Carrier's book "Sense and Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism" provided an excellent backbone to the first set of points.

The methodological and other problems:

• The biggest and most fatal criticism is that it is a tautology. The universe has to be ‘fine-tuned’ for life. Life developed within the universe, and so life has to be evolved TO the universe. Life cannot develop dancing to the tune of another universe – this is nonsensical. Therefore, any life that starts in any universe, by definition, must be ‘fine-tuned’ by that universe and thus every life-permitting universe will appear to be fine-tuned for life.

• Black holes: our universe is full of them - trillions and trillions of them. It seems like the very purpose of the universe is to produce black holes (not life). There are more black holes than life bearing planets (a lot more). A lot more material in the universe is devoted to creating black holes (a lot more). The universe is almost entirely a vacuum, in which black holes, not life, thrive. We barely struggle along, having a very difficult time surviving, in brutal competition for resources on a microscopic island of life that will be melted by the sun in some time. If we're not wiped out by meteors or interstellar radiation before then. Life has a hard time starting and is very easy to get rid of. Black holes, on the other hand, are inevitable consequences of this universe. And then it's almost impossible to get rid of them. Black holes are right at home in this universe. 'God did it' in no way explains this, especially in context of everything else the god hypothesis claims. God could have made:

Quote of the Day, by Kel

...there's more and more evidence showing the way people think when they are confronted with antithetical voices and arguments. If people are seen to be opposing what someone holds close to them, the critical thinking portion of their brain effectively shuts down. People are very good at rationalising what they hold dear. Smart people will parrot poor arguments and reason when it fits in favour of what they believe - just look at what passes for Christian apologetics, some very smart people have written absolute dreck - and will dismiss legitimate criticism when it goes against. Psychological studies have shown that once a belief becomes ingrained that showing contrary evidence can even increase the certitude that people will have in that belief. You can change how people will assess arguments by the affiliations you attach to an argument. In other words, we have every cognitive reason in the world to not try to give those who disagree with us a fair hearing.

It's all the more reason to show that you understand where the other people are coming from, and to be able to take these issues and be able to talk clearly and resolutely on them. It's what should be expected from people who are meant to be coming from a knowledge-based position. Link

Humpty Dumpty Meets Reductio ad Absurdum--How Christian Rabbits Morph into Mad Hatters

Here's a post I promised as a followup to my previous post, “What Happened When Humpty Dumpty Met the Sons of Gods.”

A God Driven by Blood, Suffering and Death: Human Sacrifice in the Bible

When Christians get all choked up and teary eyed by New Testament texts (such as John 3:16), they would do well to consider the history from the Old Testament of God’s lust for human blood and life as the real basis for Jesus’ sacrificial atonement. So Christian, if you thought of God as your loving Heavenly Father, think again!
“He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a man, that he should change his mind." (1 Samuel 15: 29)

(The following section is from a much longer article I wrote on human sacrifice in the Bible)

What Happened When Humpty Dumpty Met the Sons of Gods

While I have presented this information in a paper, this post was inspired by a podcast by Credo House in their failed attempt to explain the difficult passages of Genesis 6:1-4, which speaks of the “sons of god” who TOOK women and had children with them:

THE GREAT COMMISSION...DREAM ON

Jesus told his followers to “Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to everyone.” Mk 16:15 Or in Matthew’s version, “Go and make disciples of all nations.” Mt. 28:19.

And there they went for over almost two thousand years facing privation, danger, untold expense, all in fulfillment of the obligation to spread the word and bring in new recruits. They walked their shoes off, crossed oceans, lost lives, were hated by unwelcoming prospects who had “no soliciting” signs posted at their borders, and it was all so unnecessary.

According to a new book by missionary Tom Doyle “Dreams and Visions” Jesus has recently been revealing himself to Muslims through powerful dreams and visions. See a recent Charisma News article.

The Top Ten Things I Stand Against

I'm best known for the things I stand against. This is by design. I am a contrarian, a gadfly. I'm not going to mention all of the kinds of things that democratic loving civilized people are against, like first degree murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, rape, child molesting, child pornography, slavery, corporate greed and the ensuing poverty of lower classes, religious and secular militant governments and gangs, Naziism, obstruction of justice, perjury, con artist scams, and so on, since that list is long. I do however, stand against some things that are controversial.

Thunderf00t Isn't Happy With PZ Myers At All

See below:

Quote of the Day: D Rizdek on Fine-Tuning

Another great comment from D Rizdek on this thread here. In talking about the fine-tuning argument that theists use, he comes up with an interesting take - theists are anthropomorphising God:

A Primer On How To Silence One's Opponents

The answer: Shout them down. It's the most effective way. You've been there. In a room of people who all agree against you, one big guy stands up with a passionate speech and makes you feel as if to continue disagreeing is to be rude. We've all been there. But this didn't change our minds, did it? We just sat in silence fearing to buck the consensus because we might be socially ostracized. This is called bullying. That tactic is the one Freethought Bloggers and commenters have used against religion and is now being used against anyone who disagrees with their consensus, the one basically set by PZ Myers. This doesn't change minds either. One of the hallmarks of skeptical groups is that we embrace reason and science. So I have an important question. How is silencing one's opponents in this manner being reasonable? It's a reasonable question. Don't shout it down FtBlgers or you just proved my point, that this is what many of you do. I think the growing backlash against Freethought Blogs is that most of them refuse to reason with those who disagree, and that's not anything I want to be a part of at all, even if they ostracize me. Compared to this I am a voice of reason that the various skeptical communities need. There are many others like me. [Freethought Blogs]

A Conversation with Dr. Peter Boghossian

I've recommended professor Boghossian before, seen here and also here. He mentioned me in the following program at 48:40, but I especially liked the things he said at 55:00 and then beginning at 58:00.

My Response to Hank Fox, the Blue Collar Atheist

Now I wouldn't generally single out a guy who doesn't claim to be an academic, but since fellow FTBlger Daniel Fincke linked to what Hank wrote on his Facebook page, claiming Hank "answers" me (rather than saying he "responded" to me), I thought that by engaging Hank I would also be engaging Daniel, who is part of the bullying crowd there. I have engaged Daniel on more than one occasion where I have come away thinking to myself he needs a basic course in critical thinking. Oh, not very often of course, since he writes some really good stuff I recommend. It only comes out when defending the herd at FTB. This is why David Eller argues a true freethinker is someone unattached to a community because a community will influence what we think. Daniel has dehumanized (or even worse, demonized) me because of these disagreements. Well then, let's just see what this demon has to say in response and see if Daniel still thinks Hank "answers" me. ;-)

From Christian to Atheist in 28 Minutes

I am always looking for something interesting to watch when I have some down time, and recently came across a documentary site called “Documentary Storm” which has a number of Christian and atheist movies available for viewing free of charge, so I decided to see if I could find something interesting—which I did. The first thing I clicked on was the video “From Christian to Atheist” which turned out to be an amateur video that was relatively well done.

Antony Flew on 'Theology and Falsification'

This superb essay was linked to me by Andreas on another thread. It [edit] originates from a symposium between Flew, R.M. Hare and Basil Mitchell in 1944 or 1945 and was written by Antony Flew in his prime. I remember dealing with the parable some years ago in discussion, but had sadly forgotten about it since. It is as relevant today as it ever was:

Heads you win, tails I lose

When thinking about subjects like the fine-tuning argument it becomes apparent that the theist loves to have their cake and eat it. They thrive off a “heads I win, tails you lose" scenario.

Atheist Blogger Converts to Catholicism

Author of atheist blog announces she will become Catholic.

“I’m really sure that morality is objective, human-independent, something we uncover like archeologists, not something we build like architects… And Christianity offered an explanation which I came to find compelling.”

Well so much for a “milk toast” atheist (if she was ever was an atheist). Read her story and give your opinion (You can even leave your comment on her site .)

American Atheists Want People to Have Sex At Their Conferences

Dave Silverman, president of American Atheists, said: "I want people to have sex at our conferences." Now there's a marketing strategy! Don't miss the next one, okay? Anyone want to hook up there? ;-)

I don't think I've ever heard an organizer of a national insurance conference saying this, or even a national trucker's conference. Surely this statement is a by-product of the pressure coming from the hyper-anti-sexist crowd, something required in order not appear to be against sex itself. Extreme pressure requires extreme statements like these. This alone shows us the extreme nature of the pressure coming from the hyper-anti-sexist crowd.

The Gospel of Matthew Caught In A Lie

Jesus speaking:
“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church (τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ•). And if he refuses to listen even to the church (τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ•), let him be to you as a Gentile (ὁ ἐθνικὸς ) and a tax collector.” (Matthew 18: 15 – 18)

Cody Rudisill's Infant Salvation in Evangelical Theology, pt. 2 - the response

A few weeks ago I posted a piece of work that Cody Rudisill, a commentator here, had put together on the subject of infant salvation - whether newborns and young children would be saved or damned eternally in the context of Calvinist Christianity. Cody clearly showed the problems in Calvinist thought and presented a good syllogism.

In this piece, Cody revisits the problem and deals with the typically problematic response that he received within Christian academia. See what you think: