Pete Edwards of Durham University On The Scale of the Universe

Edwards says we cannot get our heads around how big the universe is. Matthew Cobb at Why Evolution is True corrects his numbers, which are out of date:

Here’s how astronomers breakout the visible universe within 14 billion light years:
Superclusters in the visible universe = 10 million
Galaxy groups in the visible universe = 25 billion
Large galaxies in the visible universe = 350 billion
Dwarf galaxies in the visible universe = 7 trillion
Stars in the visible universe = 30 billion trillion (3×10²²)

A new study suggests that 90% of the most distant (and therefore oldest) galaxies in the universe could be unseen, hidden by clouds of dust. That would mean that – assuming the same number of stars in each galaxy, and that older galaxies don’t deviate from this rule – that the number of stars in the visible universe would be 270 billion trillion or 2.7 x 10 to the power of 24).

My argument is based on what Nicholas Everitt first wrote, but goes beyond it. The question Everitt broaches is whether, prior to the rise of modern science, we would expect to find this vast universe given a description of the Christian God of theism. We are to imagine asking what we would expect of such a God before the rise of modern science. What would we expect? Nicholas Everitt argues as follows:

Theism tells us that God is a being who is omnipotent and omniscient, wholly self-sufficient, with no needs, or lacks, or deficiencies of any kind. For reasons that are not entirely clear, God decides to create a universe in which human beings will be the jewel. Although he will have a care for the whole of his creation, God will have an especial care for human beings. He will give these creatures the power of free choice. Exactly what this power is, no one can agree...Because humans are the jewel of creation, the rest of the universe will be at least not unremittingly hostile or even indifferent to human flourishing. Even if the universe will not make such flourishing immediately and easily and painlessly accessible, it will make it at least accessible in principle for humanity at large. The question then to ask is: given this much information about God and his nature and his purposes, what sort of a universe would you expect to find? Which of all the possible worlds that God could create would you expect him to create, given this much knowledge of his nature and of his overall plan?

The description of God is so sketchy, and in particular the theistic hypothesis gives us so little information about his aims, that a large number of possible worlds are left equally likely. But among the more likely scenarios is a universe somewhat like the one presented to us in the story of Genesis. In particular, traditional theism would lead you to expect human beings to appear fairly soon after the start of the universe. For, given the central role of humanity, what would be the point of a universe which came into existence and then existed for unimaginable aeons without the presence of the very species that supplied its rationale? You would expect humans to appear after a great many animals, since the animals are subordinate species available for human utilisation, and there would be no point in having humans arrive on the scene needing animals (e.g. as a source of food, or clothing, or companionship) only for them to discover that animals had not yet been created. But equally, you would not expect humans to arrive very long after the animals, for what would be the point of a universe existing for aeons full of animals created for humanity’s delectation, in the absence of any humans? Further, you would expect the earth to be fairly near the centre of the universe if it had one, or at some similarly significant location if it did not have an actual centre. You would expect the total universe to be not many orders of magnitude greater than the size of the earth. The universe would be on a human scale. You would expect that even if there are regions of the created world which are hostile to human life, and which perhaps are incompatible with it, the greater part of the universe would be accessible to human exploration. If this were not so, what would the point be of God creating it?

These expectations are largely what we find in the Genesis story (or strictly, stories) of creation. There is, then, a logic to the picture of the universe with which the Genesis story presents us: given the initial assumptions about God, his nature, and his intentions, the Genesis universe is pretty much how it would be reasonable for God to proceed. Given the hypothesis of theism and no scientific knowledge [Emphasis is mine, John], and then asked to construct a picture of the universe and its creation, it is not surprising that the author(s) of Genesis came up with the account which they did. It is not that God would have had to proceed in the Genesis way, and it is not that every non-Genesis way would be extremely puzzling. There is in fact a wide range of possible universes which God could have created and about which there would not be a puzzle of the form ‘But how could a universe like that be an expression of a set of intentions like those?’ Nevertheless, we can still draw a distinction between universes which would be apt, given the initial hypothesis, and universes which would be inapt. The Genesis universe is clearly an apt one, given the theistic hypothesis; but a universe in which (say) most humans could survive only by leading lives of great and endless pain would be a surprising one for God to choose, given the other assumptions we make about him.

The question now to raise is ‘Is the universe as it is revealed to us by modern science roughly the sort of universe which we would antecedently expect a God of traditional theism to create? Is it an apt universe, given the admittedly sketchy conception we have of his nature and his intentions?’ The short answer to this is ‘No’. In almost every respect, the universe as it is revealed to us by modern science is hugely unlike the sort of universe which the traditional thesis would lead us to expect.

Nicholas Everitt, The Non-existence of God, pp. 215-16, seen in chapter 11 Arguments From Scale (pdf).

I think Everitt's argument works. More importantly I have strengthened it quite a bit in chapter 24 of my book, Why I became an Atheist: Personal Reflections and Additional Arguments. That's where someone can find my particular argument, which represents 2/3rds of that chapter. 

The best way to know what people would expect to find prior to the rise of modern science is to investigate what people thought of the universe before its rise. 

Western believers used to claim God (or Zeus) lived on Mt. Olympus. But then someone climbed up there and he wasn't to be found. Then they claimed God lived just beyond the sky dome that supported the water, called the firmament. But we flew planes and space ships up into the air and found he wasn't there either. Believers now claim God exists in a spiritual sense everywhere. What best explains this continual retreat? Doesn't it sound more like the attempt to defend one's faith as science progresses, rather than progressively understanding what God is like? Dante's Divine Comedy shows this, most emphatically. Just look at how he described the heavens. Do some research on how popular his work was. Hint: it was so popular he is even called the "Father of the Italian language," more influential than Shakespeare was on the English language, and we know his influence was immense.

When saying the scale of the universe is not incompatible with an omnipotent omniscient personal omnipresent deity. The present scale of the universe is exactly what we would expect to find if such a God does not exist, whether I can convince someone of this or not. 

Most arguments are convincing ones if the people hearing them have the necessary background knowledge. That is to say, most arguments only convince the already convinced. That does not make them bad arguments just because they cannot convince those who are not already convinced. Or else, there are probably no such arguments at all when it comes to the issues that divide us. Almost all of the arguments that convince people on these kinds of issues do so cumulatively. That is, people do not see the force of any of them until they see the force of them all. There is probably not a single argument that can bear the weight of being a convincing argument to Christian theists. So to judge Everitt's argument as if it must bear this weight is asking it to do the impossible.

Can we attempt to judge the strength of arguments like this anyway? Can we evaluate arguments like these based on how much force they have individually? And if so, where would Everitt's argument be placed on a scale of 1-10, with 10 having the most force and 1 having the least amount of force? I'm not sure we can even do this. Personal reasons are, after all, personal reasons. Just refresh yourselves with my AFI in the above link. For me this argument had a great deal of force as I was thinking about my former Christian faith, probably ranked 1.5 on that scale. Now if you imagine 1.5 as a really small amount of force, think again. Since there isn't an argument that would score a 10 let's say the most forceful argument would rank 3.0 on that scale. Come on, do you really think anyone atheist argument could be ranked higher? As I said, the case is cumulative whereby we add up the arguments before we come to reject faith.

Robert Ingersoll On Life, Death, Hope, Afterlife

The Great Infidel, as he was known everywhere in the last half of the 19th century, was often called upon to speak at funerals – no better occasion to reflect on the greatest mysteries of life. And no one could do it better. He said no one knew or could know whether there was a life after death; but he was absolutely certain that if there were, the notion of eternal punishment for anyone was an ghastly priest-made libel upon a “loving and merciful” God. In some of these tributes he shows signs of hope for an afterlife -- the source being a longing to one day be reunited with those we have loved and who have loved us. -- Compiled by Julian W. Haydon.

William Lane Craig’s Views on Animal Suffering Debunked Further

The first video response to him can be found here.

"I Can't Believe You're an Atheist"

In October a good Hispanic friend of mine named Juana learned I was an atheist. She is the captain of our pool league team in Ft. Wayne. I told her I couldn't play the following week because I was going on a speaking tour of four Colorado Universities. She asked why, so I told her I was speaking about my books. She asked about them and learned for the first time I was an atheist. Then she said, "I can't believe you're an atheist." She went on and on about it as if this was an extremely bad thing. She went to a few other people and asked them if they believed in God, almost as if to determine by majority vote whether God existed or not. I don't think she ever met someone she liked so much who was an atheist. You see, we have known each other for over six years and the subject never came up. I do not force my views on people I personally know and I do not get in anyone's face about what I think. I'm not afraid in the least to tell people I'm an atheist if the subject arises. But when it doesn't then there is nothing to say.

"Hey Girls, We're Talking About Religion"

Today I'm going to hang out with my brother-in-law Kim (his name), who is a right-wing Obama-hater and Rush Limbaugh fan. Our wives are getting together for a girl's day out. Usually when Kim and I are together the girls forbid us from talking religion or politics. But whenever we're out by ourselves we do, and we have a great time of it. Over a beer or two we'll shout out, "Hey girls, we're talking about religion and loving it." It's sort of a passive aggressive rebellion I suppose. But he's a great guy even though we disagree quite vehemently. And he likes getting together with me just as much as I like being with him. Almost all of my personal friends are Christians, just in case anyone wants to know. Online people paint me with broad strokes as if I don't care about Christians. If I didn't care about them then I wouldn't have any personal friends at all.

Ahhhh, the Mind of the Believer

I'm tired of getting hit with, "Hey, that doesn't describe me." Okay, I get it. Nonetheless, I have a good Seventh Day Adventist friend whose vehicle wouldn't start. So yesterday we tried to get it running. I'm not much of a mechanic but we did figure out it was his fuel pump located in the gas tank. He's a painter so he decided to finish a job over the weekend in order to get the needed money to fix it. I deviously suggested his vehicle broke down because God was punishing him in advance for working on Saturday (which is forbidden by his sect). The funny thing is that he seriously considered this. I had a good laugh with him about it. Maybe so, I said, who knows? ;-)

Seek And Ye Shall Find

I started to write something and realized I had already done so. There are over 4000 posts in the archives with a really good search engine in the sidebar. Try it. Do a search for "The Accommodation Theory of the Bible." See, that was easy. Now do another one for "The New Evangelical Orthodoxy." Do other searches. Repeat. Rinse. Repeat again.

Robert Ingersoll On the Outsider Test for Faith

Before I argued for it Ingersoll did.

5 Obviously False References in the Bible

As the ages march on, it is a delight to find fewer attending churches and more making time to sit around doing other, more enjoyable things come Sunday. But even while classes full of growing students are satiated in going to their professors for answers instead of their priests, the age-old debate on the existence of God / validity of [insert religion here] somehow still rages on. The question should by now be settled, but those states where the collective IQ hasn’t exceeded 57 still have people who are clinging tightly to mom and dad’s hard-shell faith to define us.

However, it is a breath of fresh air to know that the seeds of doubt are first planted, not by scholarship or by secular parenting, but by common sense questions and healthy brains at work. Below are 5 biblical mentions that are in that camp known as “It don’t take no gosh-darn edjamucations to see this ain’t right.” Some things in God’s holy book are wrong simply because they defy any real level of sense. We begin the countdown with...

There Isn't a Bad Reason to Reject the Christian Faith, Part 4

Previously I argued there isn't a bad personal reason to reject the Christian faith. Christian apologist Dr. Vincent Torley understood my argument fairly well so I'll use what he wrote to describe it (edited for brevity without the digressions). Then I'll comment on it.

For With God All Things Are Possible (Mark 10: 27)

MEA MAXIMA CULPA: SILENCE IN THE HOUSE OF GOD
Oscar winning filmmaker Alex Gibney examines the abuse of power in the Catholic Church through the story of four courageous deaf men, who in the first known case of public protest, set out to expose the priest who abused them. Through their case the film follows a cover-up that winds its way from the row houses of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, through the bare ruined choirs of Ireland's churches, all the way to the highest office of the Vatican.

Dr. Rauser Asks: Should Christians Help Atheists Make Better Arguments?

He asks us to consider two scholars, Chris the Christian philosopher and Alan the atheist philosopher.

Alan writes a new paper in which he argues that God does not exist based on the problem of evil. He sends a draft to his friend Chris and asks Chris for feedback. Chris reads through the paper and identifies a serious problem. Chris writes a critique in which he identifies the problem and identifies a way to make the argument much stronger. As a result Chris has a reasonable ground to believe that many people may read the revised paper and come to the conviction that God doesn’t exist based in part on the alterations suggested by Chris. However, Chris still believes God does exist and that anybody who concludes that God doesn’t exist will have adopted a false belief about a very important issue. And so Chris must accept that based on arguments he has fine-tuned many people will adopt false beliefs about a very important issue. Has Chris done anything wrong by offering that critique to Alan?

He concludes by saying:

Upstate South Carolina School District Fights to Keep Prayers in Meetings

As Al Roker on NBC’s Today Show says: Here’s what's happening in my neck of the woods. (Pickens is 14 miles from my house.) Wait for video to load.

Hundreds showed up at the Pickens County school board meeting Monday night begging the board to keep its routine invocation despite a Wisconsin-based organization asking them to refrain from prayer.

There Isn't a Bad Reason to Reject the Christian Faith, Part 3

To see what I've been arguing recently read Part 1, and if so desired read Part 2. Now for Part 3 where I'll attempt to deal with another objection, this time coming from Matt DeStefano, an atheist who is a philosophy student in a master's level program. I remember those days myself a long long time ago in a far away galaxy. I hope you're enjoying this period in your life Matt, because you will probably look back on it as the best time in your life, as I do. DeStefano presents a scenario that is supposed to be the exception to my blanket claim that there isn't a bad personal reason to reject Christianity. If an exception can be found then my blanket claim is false. So let me say first of all that if DeStefano's counter-example works then it doesn't undercut anything else I said, only that there is an exception or two or three. I can live with this if so. Nonetheless, I don't think his scenario works.

I’m Not a Christian or Theist, But You’re Wrong about the Bible!

As I continue to gather more facts for my forth coming post on the Canonization of the Bible, I became aware that this post on the Bible (like many of my others) will draw negative critics from supposed friendly fire.

There Isn't a Bad Reason to Reject the Christian Faith, Part 2

Previously I argued there isn't a bad personal reason to reject the Christian faith. This argument is aimed at Christians who believe in the following Doctrinal Statement (DS): An omniscient, omnibenelovent, omnipotent God exists who sent Jesus to atone for the sins of all who believe in him and desires that everyone should be saved with no one lost (See 1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9). Other believers need not apply. Other beliefs that people have are not specifically relevant to my argument except as they illustrate how bad human beings generally reason about things. In the next few posts I'm going to answer some criticisms of what I had written. Be sure to read my original post to understand what follows.

With regard to objective reasons to reject Christianity there are a multitude of them. There isn't much objective evidence for the Christian faith at all, if there is any. On that subject I have been clear. Again for the record, there are many many good personal reasons AND good arguments that should lead reasonable people to reject Christianity.

The question for us however, is not whether there are good objective reasons to reject Christianity. The question is whether private, subjective, ignorant, irrational, rebellious and self-deceptive reasons to reject Christianity are good ones given DS above. My argument is that even these "bad" reasons for rejecting Christianity are still good reasons.

Bad reasons are good ones. Or, to state it better, 

bad reasons are not bad reasons after all, while good reasons are still good ones.

In my previous post I asked several questions about how human beings reason. I said that if any of a number of factors were to obtain then the distinction between having good personal reasons and bad personal reasons for what we believe basically flies out the window. I did not comment with finality on whether or not this is the case. Although it's clear I think the distinction is hard to pinpoint apart from the results of science, which is the exception, since it deals in hard cold objective evidence that eventually changes minds. I asked questions that need asked and answered. 

I think that what makes any given belief rational is a complex subject. Yes, yes, it involves sufficient evidence, but it's really interesting to me how rational people can basically evaluate the same evidence and come away with opposite conclusions. 

What I did say was this: "If nothing else, there are certainly many cases where we cannot even say what it means for some people to have good personal reasons for what they believe." So by providing a counter-example that it's not rational to believe the moon is made of green cheese, doesn't say anything about most all of the things reasonable people disagree about that are as clear as mud. And it says nothing about my particular argument either. When it comes to rational peer disagreements where it's not clear to everyone who is right or wrong, they are Legion (cue the biblical reference). Who's to say who's rational and who's not, apart from science anyway?

What we can say with virtual certainty is that all people who accept something as true also think they have good reasons for it, to a person, on a conscious level. That's why our abilities to reason are extremely bad. It's because of the haphazard evolution of the human brain. The only antidote to our poor reasoning abilities is science.

We're not talking about "any other false belief." Of that I am crystal clear. We're talking about Christians who accept DS. My argument is that all personal reasons are good ones when it comes to rejecting the particular doctrinal beliefs represented in DS. 

Christianity Today's Condescending Review of Ingersoll

Anyone who has written a book critical of Christianity sees exactly what Timothy Larsen is doing in reviewing Susan Jacoby's new book, The Great Agnostic: Robert Ingersoll and American Freethought. It's what most Christians do when reviewing such a book. They claim the infidel is ignorant or a second class intellectual. As many of you know, Julian Haydon has been sending me essays by Ingersoll over the last few months in order to keep his memory alive. Julian responds to Larsen as follows:

My Interview For An Article On "The Christian Post"

I was asked a few questions for an article by Diana Bridgett on the rise of atheist churches. You can read the result here. Below are the questions and my full answers. I just don't want to waste 'em.

There Isn't a Bad Reason to Reject the Christian Faith, Part 1

I have been thinking about Christianity for over forty years. I believed it. I preached it. I earned several master's degrees in it. I taught it. I learned to reject it. Then for over seven years on a daily basis I have sought to argue against it. I have written, co-written and/or edited five published books in five years containing the results of everything I have learned, which should lead thinking people to reject it. But I have to confess here and now, up front and center, that there isn't a bad reason to reject the Christian faith. I don't expect people to agree. It's a conclusion I have come to from everything I have learned. Again, there isn't a bad reason to reject the Christian faith. Since there might be one I'll leave it up to someone to suggest it. Otherwise, my claim stands.

So let me merely introduce what appears to be an overly simplistic claim and see what happens from here. As I said, I'm only introducing this line of thought. Christian people have said of me that, "Of the many atheist and theist blogs that I follow I would have to say that you are the best at consistently coming up with interesting topics and arguments even though I disagree with almost everything you say." Okay then, here goes. I want to defend the claim of the title to this post. Let's see if I can by taking an absurdly ignorant argument against Christianity and show why it's still a good reason for rejecting the Christian faith.

Lawrence Krauss on Science vs Religion

In a recent debate with a Muslim apologist, Lawrence Krauss lays out the differences between the scientific and religious mindset.

The full debate is excellent and can be found here.

Interview with Baba Brinkman (evolutionary rapper extraordinaire)!

Recently, (on SIN) I ran a couple of posts sharing some of the utterly awesome work of Canadian science rapper Baba Brinkman. He is a fascinating guy who has kindly agreed to an interview which I am sharing with you here. Before I get down to the interview, let me share with / remind you of his truly great work:

Mindlessly Quote-Mining the Bible is Not Thinking

What Are Your Favorite Friedrich Nietzsche Quotes?

"A god who is all-knowing and all-powerful and who does not even make sure his creatures understand his intention – could that be a god of goodness? Who allows countless doubts and dubieties to persist, for thousands of years, as though the salvation of mankind were unaffected by them...Would he not be a cruel god if he possessed the truth and could behold mankind miserably tormenting itself over the truth? – But perhaps he is a god of goodness notwithstanding – and merely could not express himself more clearly! Did he perhaps lack intelligence to do so? Or the eloquence?...Must he not then...be able to help and counsel [his creatures], except in the manner of a deaf man making all kinds of ambiguous signs when the most fearful danger is about to befall on his child or dog?”

Quote of the Day About DC's Commentariat

I just got an email that said: "Your blog is great. And for some strange reason, the comments are great too." But there is nothing strange about this at all. Here at DC is where educated people on both sides of the religion question meet to debate. We like it this way. And I am grateful for the people who comment. They are the best around.

Dr. William Harwood Reviews My Revised Book, WIBA

First the money quote:

Much of Loftus’s revised Why I Became an Atheist book is devoted to refuting the arguments of Christian apologists...Someone had to rebut the apologists, and Loftus has written a definitive refutation that only incurables could dispute—as they no doubt will continue to do. Fortunately the arguments of the “new atheists” are reaching the masses, and religion’s days are accordingly numbered. Without Loftus to pull the rug out from under the incurables, that might have taken longer.

Now for the whole review:

The Theme of My Forth Coming Post: A Humanly Created Bible Produces a Synthetic God

My last major post dealt with one solid fact; the reality that is there is no book or even a verse of the entire Bible older than 250 BCE. Even though I offered $30.00 as a reward to anyone who could prove me wrong, my challenge still stands as it did was four months ago . . . totally unanswered.

Jason Long Reviews My Revised book, WIBA

Jason Long wrote two excellent books, Biblical Nonsense,and the one I reviewed on Amazon and liked the best, The Religious Condition: Answering And Explaining Christian Reasoning.On Amazon.com Jason just reviewed my revised book, Why I Became an Atheist,saying,

What Religion Has Contributed to the World This Month

Harry Blamires vs Randal Rauser; Amnesia is the New Opiate of the Masses

Randal Rauser has a celebratory post about Harry Blamires where writes:

Back in the early 1960s many people considered Harry Blamires, a budding Anglican theologian and literary critic, to be a younger C.S. Lewis. In his incisive book The Christian Mind: How should a Christian think?(1963) Blamires explores the question of how one’s Christian convictions ought to change the way one thinks. Like all great books, The Christian Mind has aged gracefully and its analysis continues to provide novel insight into the world around us.

Yes, indeed. I agree, but not in the way Rauser does. I think Blamires's book is an indictment on Rauser's ever changing chameleon approach to theology, something I'm sure Blamires would vehemently reject.

Music Unites While Religion Divides

Should Science Be Viewed As a Metal Detector?

I haven't found another blog like DC where intelligent Christians and atheists meet to debate the issues. I like it. Perhaps one of the reasons is because of comments like the one from a Keith R.:

Hi, John, I’m a long time reader and sometime commenter on DC. Of the many atheist and theist blogs that I follow I would have to say that you are the best at consistently coming up with interesting topics and arguments even though I disagree with almost everything you say.

I've heard this from others several times before. There aren't too many people out there who understand the mind of the believer and who blog on a daily basis like the writers here at DC (including Hector Avalos, Harry McCall, Jonathan Pearce, Phil Torres, and the articulate articulett). Just the same, Keith R. disagreed with my recent post, Enough of This Utter Nonsense, On Knowing the Supernatural. He wants us to think of science as a metal detector, and as such, it cannot detect anything that isn't metal. Hence, there are things that science cannot detect, supernatural things. *POOF* Therefore a trinitarian incarnational atoning resurrecting ascending and soon to be returning God exists. Get this? Neither do I.

'Going Clear': A New Book Delves Into Scientology

In the introduction to his new book, Going Clear: Scientology, Hollywood and the Prison of Belief, Lawrence Wright writes, "Scientology plays an outsize role in the cast of new religions that have arisen in the 20th century and survived into the 21st."

The book is a look inside the world of Scientology and the life of its founder, L. Ron Hubbard, who died in 1986. A recent ad for Scientology claims to welcome 4.4 million new converts each year. Listen to an interview with Lawrence Wright on NPR HERE

Enough of This Utter Nonsense, On Knowing the Supernatural

A Christian commented on a recent post having to do with how science could know the supernatural:

Let's posit for a moment that the supernatural does exist. It then follows that science, which by definition focuses on the natural, would have absolutely no means to measure it or detect it. It could thus never serve as a method and no scientific protocol could ever be established to rule it out, regardless of how real the supernatural would be.

Oh my gosh, believers have just pawned us god-hating atheists now, haven't they? *Throws in the towel in defeat.* Wait, on second thought, this is utter hogwash and it should be easily seen. So here goes.

Peter Boghossian's Challenge to William Lane Craig

If you want to know why I think William Lane Craig is deluded rather than dishonest, as atheists who lack a basic understanding of the deluded mind claim, it's because of this video:



To hear what might be considered a response to Craig, although not intended as such, watch Peter Boghossian's talk at the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) National Convention:

Superstition by Robert Ingersoll, Part 4 the Conclusion

This final part was sent to me by my friend Julian Haydon. Enjoy. If you want to learn more about Ingersoll get Susan Jacoby's new book The Great Agnostic: Robert Ingersoll and American Freethought.