My Morality Rumination

When I de-converted from being a lifelong believer in god, the idea of being alone with my thoughts troubled me. I’d spent all my life believing that god could hear all my thoughts, and I could talk to him about anything. Losing my faith was like losing a friend, albeit a friend who never existed.

I thought a lot about morality. If no one could hear my thoughts or know my intentions, what did that mean? If there was no punishment for my actions save what the Law would execute on me, what was my guide to right or wrong?

Since then, I’ve discussed morality with other atheists, been questioned by agnostics, and been challenged by theists. But not long after I de-converted I realised something: people over-think the source of morality far too much! Even I was over-analysing it!

I’m not saying there are no ambiguous issues, and in fact, trying to paint every moral decision in terms of black and white is often impossible, and counter-productive. However, “wrong” is a word, and as a word it has a definition. “Immoral” is also a word, and as Richard Dawkins points out, words are our slaves not masters. Humans decide what words mean, so when we talk about ‘right’, ‘wrong’, and ‘morality’, we are using words that mean something. These definitions are independent of our personal beliefs and biases, just as the word “wet” means what it means and doesn’t mean “dry” if I want it to.

It is therefore illogical when (some) religious people ask atheists what their source of morality is; a loaded question if ever there was one, that tacitly assumes that they already have a credible source: their religion.

This is silly for a few reasons, and although I don’t expect any theist to give up their beliefs, I’m sure they will come to agree with me on this:

For the purposes of morality, I’ll loosely define “wrong” as that which causes unnecessary harm or suffering to another being, including violating the rights of that being, or exploiting it. Whether that definition is too verbose or too simple, it will suffice for this discussion.

If that is what “wrong” means, then we can easily analyse any action on this basis and decide whether it is right or wrong. What things might fall under this “wrong” category? I would suggest for starters: rape, murder, theft, racism, unwarranted torture, and mistreatment of animals. Therefore, anyone committing those actions is in the wrong. I doubt anyone so far would disagree with me.

I believe that these things are wrong anywhere, at any time. As a thought experiment, imagine you’re on another planet with different laws and values. Is rape wrong here? Yes! An alien race might not have a word for “wrong” or even bother with morality, but that doesn’t make it subjective! No more than if the aliens didn’t have a word for “earth” or “sun” that would stop those things being something very real and objective. Morality is objective, and right and wrong are objective expressions, because they have real meanings in the world.

To say that wrong actions are right under certain conditions is to redefine the word, in which case you’re not talking about the word “wrong” anymore, you have invented another one. This means that, even in theory, there is a word to describe the kind of actions that the original word “wrong” was meant to imply. So, even if there wasn’t a word to describe actions, they would still be right or wrong. Again, morality is a real thing, and humans have full capacity to judge actions and decide what is ethical or not. Our guide must be what does and doesn’t cause unnecessary harm.

It is clear therefore that, to borrow from Ebonmuse: anything that increases net human happiness is good, and anything that decreases net human happiness is bad.

Now, whether god exists or not is irrelevant. This isn’t an argument for or against religion. But it is self-evident that personal faith or belief in god is not a source for morality. Rather, if god exists and is moral, god himself is bound by these objective principles. If god is not bound by them, then morality is subjective and is based on god’s whim, which means rape and murder would be “good” if god said so. The common theistic reply to this is that god would never allow rape and murder because he is necessarily good himself. But this is the same problem repackaged and moved back a level: it presupposes that god must be a certain way, or that his nature must be a certain way; but if his nature must be objectively good, then objective good exists all the same. And if god cannot go against his nature which means he cannot go against “good”, then we might just as well say that god cannot go against good, which means it exists objectively anyway.

Therefore, god and religion, whether true or not, cannot be a basis for morality. In fact, one might argue that being in the position of following the orders of another being without question could, even in theory, compromise your morality.

A final thought experiment for theists will establish the issue:

If god didn’t exist, and your religion was false, would you hurt people? Would you steal and lie and cheat? Would you rape, pillage, and kill? If not, why? And if not, then you admit that your morality isn’t really linked to your god or religion after all! In which case you’re in no better or worse position than any atheist.

Deep down, we all get our morality from the same place: our own sense of right and wrong. But because objective morality exists, most of the time everyone’s senses of right and wrong coincide. There are grey areas, but morality being a real thing itself regardless of belief, should be reassuring for all. It means that we have responsibility for our actions, and we are accountable to other beings. It also means that because we’re living feeling creatures and are surrounded by other such entities, we should feel encouraged to be nice to people and increase net happiness for all. I’m sure you agree that this is a good thing to do, whether you believe in god or not.

My Affidavit

I’ve often been asked: ‘how do you know god doesn’t exist?’

Well, the truth is, I don’t!  After all, god means so many different things to different people.  My common reply to the above question is: “which god?”

If you’re asking me about a specific god though, say, the Biblical one, I’d say that I know he doesn’t exist.  I know he doesn’t exist, because it is irrational and logically inconsistent to believe he does, just as I know that square circles don’t exist.

Let me anticipate a theistic apologetic in advance: the inscrutability of god.  It is said that we cannot know the ways of god, and even seemingly wrong or inhumane actions must have a higher purpose.  This sort of defence comes from the same people who are quick to praise their god and all the good he supposedly does.  This is a contradiction.  And it is a big one!  So I’ll address it now and get it over and done with:

If you cannot say what is bad about god, then you cannot say what is good either.

You cannot have it both ways.  Either we are able to learn about god from his actions, or we’re not.  Either we can make our own moral judgements about god, or we can’t.  If we can’t, then no one has the capacity to read their holy book, know their god, and then declare him good.  You must use your intellect and morality to make that determination; the same intellect and morality that you could use to declare him evil.  And if god is essentially unknowable then we can’t say anything about him!

I want to show beyond reasonable doubt that the biblical god doesn’t exist.  I intend to do this using proof by contradiction.  Since the biblical god (according to Christians or anyone else who believes in it) is supposed to be loving, just, and compassionate, actions which strongly indicate otherwise show a contradiction, meaning that such a being as defined above cannot exist.  If theists want to use a different definition of god, that’s fair enough, but they won’t be talking about a loving, just, compassionate one.

I’d ask everyone from here on out, to pretend they’re a jury in court, and listen to the evidence presented before you.  I’d like to enter into evidence as Exhibit A, the King James Version of the Bible.   I’d like you to evaluate the character of the witness presented before you, using your intelligence and your innate sense of right and wrong.  This is my sworn testimony based on what I’ve learned about the defendant, the god of the bible:

Genesis 7.  God is angered by the wickedness of man.  As Ebon Musings points out, no race in human history has ever been so monolithic, where every man, woman, and child, thought and believed the same thing.  God decides to murder every living creature apart from a small family.  Animals are also included in this slaughter, for some reason.

Does god click his fingers and wipe them out of existence?  Does he put them to sleep quickly and humanely?  No.  God decides that not only does every human and animal on the planet deserve to die, but only a slow terrifying tortuous death will suffice: drowning.

Fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, pregnant girls, and babies.  Every single one murdered.  The reason?  Man is wicked.  What is god’s reaction after the flood?  Regret.  In fact he says: “I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake; for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth.”  So, mankind is evil so god kills them.  Then he promises not to kill mankind again by a flood because…they’re evil.

Does this sound like a fair, just person?  Or is this the reasoning of psychopath?

Exodus 4.  Egypt.  God’s people are captive, and god wants them released.  He sends his spokesman Moses to the Pharaoh demanding their liberation.  Every time Pharaoh says no, god sends plague after plague to hurt and curse the Egyptians.  Why didn’t Pharaoh change his mind?  God tells us why: “And I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt. But Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you…”  So, god hardened Pharaoh’s heart so that whatever happened he wouldn’t change his mind!  Note also that god knows in advance that Pharaoh will not listen to Moses, so what was the point of this charade?!  Why not save time and precious human life by delivering his people out by some other means?

Taking away Pharaoh’s free will and then punishing him for it is unfair to say the least. But to punish millions of people for the actions of one person is cruel and sadistic: the final plague god sends is to murder every firstborn of the Egyptians.  Imagine that.  The firstborn son, of every house, at any age, is murdered, all in the same night.  Who was being punished here, and why?  Was every Egyptian responsible for the Israelites captivity?  “…and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead.”

Are these the actions of a being that loves humans?  Who respects human life?  Who uses torture and murder as a very last resort?

Numbers 15.  What are you doing this Sunday?  I’m going out with friends.  We might take a walk up a hill or through the forest.  If I was living in ancient Israel, I better be careful not to pick up sticks though!

Don’t you think justice demands that the penalty for a crime should be proportionate to that crime?

Let’s see what god thinks: “And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day… And the Lord said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses.”

Imagine having masses of people around you, throwing stones at your body and head until you die from your injuries.  This form of execution would be inhumane no matter what crime you committed, but picking up sticks??

This is the same god that many Christians worship.  Whether Christians claim to be under Mosaic Law or not is irrelevant.  The god of the bible deems this just and necessary.  Do you?  If you were ruler would you make a rule like this?  Would you execute anyone in this fashion?

What is your opinion of genocide?  Is it acceptable, ever?  We know that people can be evil.  We know that many people can be evil, but isn’t genocide the ultimate act of racism: the deliberate extermination of a particular people or nation, just for belonging to that nation!  It is stupidity of the highest order to suppose that every single person of a particular race is worthy of death.  Yet, this is exactly what the god of the bible demands on many occasions.

“But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee” – Numbers 7.

(Defending yourself from invasion is one thing.  Killing soldiers in a war or occupation is one thing.  Systematically invading other nations and wiping out all life in those cities is genocide.  It has been attempted before, most notably by Hitler, and we all have our opinions of his character.)

Even in the New Testament, god’s attention switches from people of different nations to people who simply don’t believe.  The penalty is always the same: death.

In today’s culture, the death penalty is considered the ultimate price to pay for a crime, but in most civilised countries it has been virtually abolished!

Was the god of the bible unique amongst gods of the time?  Did the Israelites and their god have an evolved morality that made them stand out for their tolerance and ethics?  Or were they just like every other nation of the time; primitive and barbaric?

Numbers 31.  The Israelites defeat the Midianites in battle, and all the male Midianites are killed.  Did Moses declare victory?  No.  There was still work to be done.  The soldiers of Israel had left alive the young males, all the women, all the girls, and all the babies.

What did god’s spokesman have to say?  “Have ye saved all the women alive? …. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.”

Would a loving, just, and caring god demand the execution of young boys?  Why were non-virgin women killed but not virgin girls?  You know why!  They were used as sex slaves.  Unfortunately for the virgin boys, since homosexuality was a sin (also punishable by death), the Israelites had no use for them, so they were murdered too.

Are these the actions you would expect from a God of Love?  Or are these actions crimes of war?  Genocide, mass murder, infanticide, and rape.  Note that all the virgin girls are given over to the men of Israel; their ages aren’t specified.

God punishes his people for the slightest transgression in the bible, yet he has nothing at all to say about Moses’ barbaric orders.  Why?

Joshua 6. Same old story.  Moses has been succeeded by Joshua, and he leads god’s armies to the city of Jericho.  The result: “And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.”

Imagine if a foreign power decided to invade your community.  Imagine even that some people in your community were horrid criminals.  But if this power exterminated every human and animal where you had grown up, you’d think them a despicable inhuman band of evil murderers.  And you’d be right to.

Joshua 7.  A man called Achan steals treasure that god’s army looted in battle.  The punishment?  Achan is burned to death.  So are all his animals, his wife, and his children.  What does this tell us about the punisher?  Even if Achan and his entire family were guilty, is being burned alive a reasonable consequence for stealing or conspiracy to steal?

In the first book of Samuel, the Ark of the Covenant is stolen and then returned to the Israelites.  When it returns, the Jews make the mistake of opening it and beholding the interior.  What did our loving caring compassionate understanding all-knowing god do?  He executed over 50,000 people.  The next time you’re at a public gathering like a sports stadium, imagine everyone in there suddenly murdered.  Reasonable?

2 Kings 2.  The prophet Elisha is walking along a road when 40 children appear and start name-calling Elisha for being bald.  Elisha curses them.  No sooner did he do this, than two she-bears come out of the woods and tear the children to pieces.

Are you a parent?  Is your child a saint?  Have they ever teased or tormented someone?  Have they ever taken the mickey or acted foolishly?  Imagine if you got home from work one day and the news was given to you that your young child had been ripped to pieces by a wild animal, for the “crime” of insulting a stranger about being bald.

Would you worship a god that had such a short violent temper?  Are these the actions of a loving heavenly father, or an evil vindictive tyrant?

2 Chronicles 25.  Amaziah, god’s reigning king of Israel takes 10,000 prisoners alive in war.  It should be noted that although god punishes Amaziah for worshipping other gods, he does nothing about what we’re about to hear:

“And other ten thousand left alive did the children of Judah carry away captive, and brought them unto the top of the rock, and cast them down from the top of the rock, that they all were broken in pieces.”

10,000 prisoners of war were taken to a cliff edge, and thrown off one by one by one.  Like lemmings falling to their deaths by the thousands.  This is sickening mass murder, but because these 10,000 people weren’t god’s followers does that make it ok?  Would you throw another human being off a cliff?

Although god was quick to punish the crime of false worship, he does nothing about murdering thousands of defenceless people.  We might well ask: what is more important to this person; his own glorification, or the lives of thousands of helpless people?  Choosing your own egotistical interests above the lives of others is not love.

Hosea 13.  God threatens to punish the city of Samaria. Let’s see how he intends to do this:

“Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.”

This is how god intends to punish an entire city: murder of children; murder of pregnant women.

If you heard a story on the news of somebody killing children and pregnant women en masse, what would you think of that person?

Consider the following description of god’s personality:

“The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.” – Numbers 14:8

We are told that god is longsuffering, merciful, forgiving, and just…and in the same verse told that he will punish children for the crimes of their great grandfathers!  How is punishing a person for the crimes of another person just?  That is the very definition of anti-justice!

When King David desires Bathsheba and has her husband killed in battle (all this whilst god watches on and does nothing), god decides to punish David.  Well, that’s not entirely true.  He has David’s wives raped whilst other people watch, and kills the child that is the product of David and Bathsheba’s relationship.  Sure enough, the child is born, gets sick, and dies.  Would you want someone you love to pay the price for your mistakes?  Do you think that’s fair?  What would you feel for the person who took the life of your child?

The atrocities we’ve covered above show a person who is anything but merciful and patient.  Also remember that this from a person who is supposed to be infinitely wise and all-knowing, yet he loses his temper and lashes out like a spoilt brat for the slightest transgression!

In the NT, the emphasis changes to the afterlife, and burning people alive with fire for all eternity, for choosing not to follow god (or not knowing any better).

I put it to you that the biblical god is cruel, evil, unjust, and unloving.  The god of the bible is simply not compatible with the idea that many Christians have of their god.  Therefore, there are only a few possibilities left:

1.       The interpretation of god I have presented here is wrong. (Which I believe is virtually impossible to maintain after reviewing the evidence.)

2.       God exists but is the not the god of the bible, therefore Christianity and anything based on the bible is false.

3.       The god of the bible does exist, but those who believe in him have an extremely distorted and erroneous image of him.  This also means that Christianity and anything based on the bible is wrong, or the bible is not totally consistent about god’s personality.

4.       Our sense of right and wrong is inadequate to judge god.  This apologetic fails, for the reasons given above: if we cannot say “god is good” then we cannot say “god is bad”.  In other words, this attempted explanation is self-refuting.

5.       The events in the bible are mythical.  (If this were true, the stories described above are still evil, whether they’re the acts of a mythical being or not.  But if the bible stories are a myth then what is the point of believing in the biblical god?)

6.       God doesn’t exist.

In my opinion, the best way to explain the entire bible, the contradictions, the atrocities in it, with the least superfluous theories, and in the most efficient and reasonable manner, is to go with option 6.  (Especially when one considers that there is no evidence to support these atrocities!  We can safely say that they are just stories.  Horrific, barbaric, evil – but fortunately, just stories.)

For those who accept the god of the bible, the only way to escape this conclusion is to deny that the disgraceful acts and despicable atrocities committed by god or those acting on his orders, were evil.

But I do not believe that any moral, intelligent, rational person can possibly call what we have considered not evil.

I rest my case.

My Big 5 Digits

Very recently, I achieved 10,000 hits on my blog.

I didn’t write anything to mark the occasion initially because I try to space out my posts to give as much time as possible for my followers to study and meditate on the last one. I’d rather take longer on posts and receive worship feedback and discuss each issue, than just be prolific.

I started this blog back on Myspace as a way to rant over things I felt seriously about. As it became more popular though, I was encouraged by a protégé of mine to use WordPress for my blog. I did, and although the uptake was slow, the blog has really taken off in the last few months, with particular incoming traffic arriving from online Carnivals, fellow bloggers, or search engines. It’s only a matter of time before the Church of Evanescence achieves tax-exempt status (the coming-of-age celebration for any religion), but when that happens, rest assured I will still post articles (just from the comfort of a laptop on my private jet).

As a result of the increase in traffic and feedback, I’ve felt a responsibility to reduce the rants and language, and increase my seriousness and ‘professionalism’, if that’s the right word.

It is a time-consuming endeavour to research and write new articles about three times a week, but it is gratifying to receive comments and feedback, and that makes it worthwhile. After all, if I was just going to churn out regurgitated bilge three times a week to bore everyone, I’d have just named my blog “The Watchtower”.

Not all the feedback has been positive, but I wouldn’t have it any other way. I’ve had people praising me, disagreeing with me, making me pull my hair out (you know who you are!), or even calling my blog boring and uninspiring.

It’s not about who agrees with me or not though. What matters is that everyone who’s ever criticised my blog will be tracked down and killed by the Elite Guard of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy. Yes, that means you! We know who you are. Or did you think you could challenge the great Atheist Lie without consequence?!

In an unabashed act of vanity, I’d like to mention some disciples of the Church of Evanescence (the greatest atheist religion in the whole of the EAC, and if you don’t agree you will be torn apart by she-bears). This is my way of giving something back to the little people who will be joining me in the Afterlife of Lesbos, after we drink of the magical elixir known as Dom Est Os:

Spanish Inquisitor ; Darren; Pink Prozac; Cragar; Joe; januarys; polishpress; Geno; D; Jon Featherstone

(I should add now that anyone who comments on my blog is an automatic member of the Church of Evanescence, and indeed the EAC.)

Also, a special thank you to my left-hand-man and Principle Kitten Executioner, Tobe. Proving once and for all that those who drink baby’s blood aren’t all big softies, Tobe’s pedantic proof-reading and grammar correction is a constant source of nightmares, and the most likely cause of a nervous twitch I’ve developed where I blurt out: “it’s ‘I’ve gotten sugar’, not fucking ‘got’!!”, at random intervals in the day. This can be most unfortunate when you’re making your boss a cup of coffee.

Finally, a special thank you to the person who makes all things possible: Satan. Without you, we’d still be living in a paradise, surrounded by beautiful naked women who never age and have no knowledge of right and wrong. You bastard!

My Empathy

I’ve debated with many theists in person and online. Many of them have shown a profound understanding of theology and philosophy, which has left me scrambling for the research books! Some of them have baffled me with facts about science, such as quantum mechanics, that has forced me to go away and do my research. On the other hand, many theists I’ve argued with have shown very little in the way of a serious debating challenge. I think this is because many theists, (if they’re anything like me), were brought up (or taught) a series of arguments in favour of their beliefs and stock answers and defences. They’re even taught stock answers to counter-answers and all the basic apologetics.

One might have been brought up a believer, or chosen to believe. I was brought up with a head full of arguments for god, a stock of rehearsed excuses and counter-arguments, and various reasons why other religions were wrong, and atheism was a mistake.

Sometimes when I debate, I admit, I can lose patience quickly if I feel the other party isn’t being logical or honest. And my penchant for sarcasm often manifests itself. Perhaps what I don’t do enough is show empathy with the believer and make them understand that most of the time, I know exactly where they’re coming from. Now, I don’t want that to sound arrogant, as if I am above anyone and I can see their mistakes now that I’m “better”. But I think when I was a theist I’d have been slightly more receptive to an “opponent” if I knew they’d held my beliefs but rejected them. As a believer I’d want to know “why?!” Perhaps I’m just curious, or perhaps I have a passion for knowledge, but this is one reason why being told to stay away from apostates or critical information on the internet made no sense to me.

There are many atheists who de-converted, and many who were never affiliated with any religion. I won’t pretend that I have any special insight that other atheists don’t have (because I don’t), but I do have the experience of being a fundamentalist and then an atheist. So I’d like to offer the follow observations:

I think many theists are in for a shock when they debate with atheists. Whereas it’s a self-evident fact are that all humans are born atheists, a professed atheist has at least a modicum of critical thinking, and this is the key thing! It is the one thing that for all the training I was given as a believer, I wasn’t taught this! And because theists aren’t taught it, many don’t expect it. More so, a lot of them don’t understand it.

Let me say first, if I’m debating with a theist and I use the expressions “Occam’s razor” or “post hoc fallacy or “begging the question”, or “the regressive fallacy”, I am not going to get on my high horse because my opponent doesn’t understand those terms. Not all theists are versed in philosophy, and society in general doesn’t do a very good job of inculcating critical thinking skills, especially in the young. So, fair enough. However, I would genuinely expect any intelligent person to acknowledge a logical fallacy after it’s been pointed out to them.

I also know that, for all my biblical knowledge, pro-theistic arguments, and apologetics, I wouldn’t have lasted half an hour in a room of atheists. This is because many believers, especially the proselytising type, are used to talking door-to-door, or with other believers, or, and I mean no offence, people who simply don’t know good thinking from bad thinking. Coming across someone who knows how to construct and deconstruct arguments, scrutinise ruthlessly, respect facts whatever they are, and has a reasonable understanding of philosophy and perhaps most importantly science, is like running into a brick wall.

I was no theistic slouch, but I couldn’t have stood against such a person back in the day. That is why I understand the problem many theists have now. I also understand how disconcerting and even harrowing it is to consider that your cherished, rooted beliefs might be wrong.

When I was de-converting, I did my research. I soaked up everything I could on critical thinking and logical fallacies. Even after rejecting my theism and sending a thank you e-mail to Bob Carroll at The Skeptic’s Dictionary, I still didn’t accept evolution. It seemed counter-intuitive to me, and I still couldn’t buy it. Here I was, knowing that god couldn’t exist (at least the gods of human invention), yet believing in intelligent design. It wasn’t a strong conviction, since I’d learned more about evolution in a month than two decades of Creationist propaganda. (The Jehovah’s Witnesses have a booked called “Life: How did it Get Here? – By Evolution or Creation?” It is one of the biggest squalid collection of lies, half-truths, misquotes, fabrications, bad arguments, misrepresentations, misunderstandings, and fallacies you will ever read.)

My point is that my beliefs were challenged, so I did my research. This is something that believers simply don’t do enough of. Incidentally, all it took was time and lots of reading and I understood evolution. (And to be honest I’m delighted that I do. I feel that a great truth about the universe was withheld from me for years.)

If you’re a theist and you want to seriously debate with atheists online, you will almost certainly find that they are very well versed in critical thinking and science. In short, they will almost definitely know all the Arguments for God before you even recite them. The chances are, you won’t be the first theist who’s arrived in a forum/blog and said “God must exist! Look at the beautiful design in nature!” or something along those lines.

In other words, know your audience. Many atheists used to be theists. Many of them might even know your holy book better than you do! The best advice I can give you before getting into an argument (and this goes for everyone) is to know how to argue, and do your research. Not only will you avoid being embarrassed (it happens to us all at times!), you will avoid wasting your time and everyone else’s. Knowing a few logical fallacies, sound arguments, and basic science and philosophy are truly invaluable skills for any serious debater. The beauty is these things don’t even take long to learn!

Above all, in a proper intelligent discussion both parties should have one goal: truth. It doesn’t matter what you believe, answer this question:

Is there anything, even in principle, that would make you admit you’re wrong?

You know the answer, even if you won’t admit it. And if you know deep down that you’re going to hold your convictions whatever anyone says, then don’t waste time arguing. Furthermore, don’t pretend that you’re interested in truth. You’re not. Your only interest is what you already believe. And if you’re just looking to convert, again, don’t waste your time.

If you’re really interested in the facts, whatever they are, you won’t be put off by the possibility of being wrong. You won’t be afraid to go away and read up.

I’m an atheist because I think the facts support that position. But I might be wrong! You might be right! Let’s argue about it and see who’s correct. But my interest is the truth. Is yours?

My Original Sin

The three major monotheistic religions all teach that humans are tainted. No matter how hard we try, we are supposedly inherently imperfect and sinful; there is always something intrinsically unholy about humans that we constantly need atonement and forgiveness for.

Christianity refers to Original Sin, brought out by (through retrospective alteration of Genesis) the original lie of Satan to humans.

The irony here is that Original Sin is itself the ultimate Original Lie.

Like a sleazy cult leader, the three Abrahamic monotheistic religions offer you the cure to a disease you don’t have.  This is why, for no other reason than divine fiat, various aspects of the world and humanity are decreed wicked and wrong, perverse or unclean.

Why are some animals clean and others in the Old Testament?  No logical reason is given, because there isn’t one.  Human superstitions were anthropomorphised in a tyrannical god who would be disobeyed on penalty of death.

Why would god give humans perfectly natural biological processes like ejaculation or menstruation and then declare us unclean from them?

Why have women always been treated as second-class citizens wherever religion has held sway? What is so inherently flawed about the female of the species?  When you believe that god specially created woman, this sickeningly primitive attitude towards woman makes even less sense.  But suppressing women gives men power, and constantly teaches females that they are debase and low, and almost need to apologise just for being born with different body parts.

This is because religion has always been obsessed with sex and diet.  By convincing the innocent that their own bodies are disgusting and something to be feared, religion offers the cure to a non-existence plague: atonement and salvation.

Why is extra-marital sex a crime?  Why is homosexuality a crime?  Despite having no mention at all in the bible, why do all religions treat masturbation as an unnatural act of self-indulgence and debauchery?  The Faithful have even gone as far as to invent blatant falsehoods over the “dangers” of masturbation.  Why?

For those who say laws on sex etc are there for health reasons, a simple thought experiment will suffice to dispel this myth: ‘if two people who aren’t married, and may or may not be of the same gender, want to have sex but with total protection so there is no chance of conception or disease, is any consensual sexual activity acceptable then?’  If you’re a Believer and you say yes, then good; you should have no problem with the kind of sex “crimes” that religion specifies.  If you say no, then your real reasons for opposing sexual freedom are religious superstition, and have nothing to do with what is better for people or not.

Religion is about control.  It is a vehicle for human doubts and the fear of the unknown.  The Original Lie comes down to this: you are a depraved hopeless sinner, and you cannot help your own nature.  Life is a constant struggle against your own desires and urges, as you aim to beseech the help of an almighty overlord who will hopefully forgive you in the future; of course, you have to wait until you die before you realise this redemption.

There is no greater example of injustice than the doctrine that you are guilty for the crimes of others.  This is the antithesis of justice, and yet it is the core tenet of Christianity: Adam and Eve’s sin is passed onto all mankind.  This is a squalid lie.

Religion is the architect of the biggest con of all: perfectly harmless and even enjoyable things are wrong.

Fortunately, all you have to do is realise the lie to dispel its power.  If you cause no harm you can do what you want.  There is nothing wrong with you.  You have the enormous luck of being alive.  As animals go, humans are the most free of all.  Religion would have us take that gift and try to exchange it for store credit in God’s Supermarket of Guilt.  What a waste!

This is why atheism is about freedom. Atheism means that your life belongs to you, and your actions are your own.  Your life and body are your property to do with as you will.  Being human is nothing to apologise for.

Perhaps our species will never ubiquitously appreciate that freedom whilst the Original Lie still pervades innocent minds.

My Atheism

What does it mean?

It means I don’t believe in any divine beings. Everyone is born an atheist. There are degrees to atheism, such as whether one simply disbelieves in god(s), or whether one thinks god definitely doesn’t or cannot exist.

I wouldn’t say that a god cannot exist, but I am reasonably certain that one doesn’t exist, just as I’m reasonably certain there isn’t a teapot orbiting Neptune. I see absolutely no evidence that a god(s) exist, and no part of the universe necessitates postulating one for explanatory purposes. In short, I apply Occam’s razor.

Do I like it?

As far as simply believing or disbelieving goes, I neither like being an atheist nor dislike it. Atheism is a result of my rational and critical examination of the world. So, I didn’t choose to be an atheist.

Morality

I don’t like unnecessary harm. I can appreciate that other living beings also don’t like it either. Harming others makes me feel bad, and being nice to others makes me feel good. I also appreciate that (most) other living beings feel this way too. Therefore, treating people as you’d like to be treated is not only beneficial for the individual, but also for society.

I believe that “wrong” should be determined by whether unnecessary harm is caused; where there is a victim.

Because I am not bound by someone else’s morality, I can think for myself about right and wrong. I can assess the ethics of any issue without any superstitious cloud or hindering. I think “what is best for other people?” and “what will other humans think about this?”

Because of this, I respect the differences in others. I know that judging someone on their colour and sexuality is ignorant and primitive. I know that national boundaries are arbitrary lines on a map, and that we’re all one people. I can respect others’ rights to their opinions, even if I disagree with them. I have the right to criticise and question beliefs and also have mine criticised too.

Friendships

Humans are the only sapient species we know. To form close relationships with another thinking being is one of the joys of life. We are alone in our heads, with our thoughts. But relationships are a way to share our thoughts and experiences, and connect with another person. They are, in my opinion, the most important thing in life. We should treasure our friends and family because they will always be there, and they might be all we ever have. The fact that we will all lose each other one day makes relationships that much more precious.

The Environment

The universe eventually gave rise to humans. It sustains us, and all other life. I have a deep respect for the environment. I believe humans should interfere with nature as much as necessary to improve technology and quality of life, but not to the irreparable detriment of the planet.

Since there is no one to solve our problems for us; no almighty sky father to run to our rescue; no deific knight in shining armour to sweep us away, the onus is on humans to take care of the planet for ourselves and our descendants.

Beauty of life and science

I don’t need to pretend that a powerful being purposefully created everything in order to appreciate the beauty in nature.

Look at a sunrise, or a sunset. Look at sky on a clear light-free night. Look at the face of someone you love.

I feel awe when I see the size of the earth in comparison to the universe. I feel humbled when I learn about the evolution of life, and how the fragmentary portion of existence I’ve sustained thus far is beyond infinitesimal in the scale of the universe.

I am nothing. And yet, I have the ability to make my life the best it can be. I can be a positive influence on the world I live in. I can make other lives better and make them happy.

I know I am not a pawn in a cosmic battle between good and evil. I know there isn’t an evil being tricking me and tempting me every step of the way, and I know that my thoughts are my own. There is just me and other people. I am not constantly second guessing myself and berating myself for supposed imperfections. There is no one to keep apologising to, and nothing to keep apologising for. I respect myself for who I am, and respect other people for who they are.

Science is the way to understand the universe. I believe that if something is knowable, science will one day discover it. Science is the rational honest exploration of the universe, free from personal bias and belief. Science has taken us from burning and butchering others at the stake to understanding our planet and improving quality of life.

Because I have no bias apart from the facts, I am free to follow wherever science leads. Sure, science can be wrong, just like anything. But science is still our best way to truth.

The future

I’m going to die. Just like you. Just like everyone who’s ever lived, or ever will.

In the end, the only thing that matters is what we do with the life we have. You can either wallow in self-pity and mourn past mistakes, and wish for all the things that could be different in your life. You might think “well I’m going to die anyway so who cares?” Well, that’s the attitude of a loser.

On the other hand, you can get over your regrets. You can act. You can cherish other people. You can change the things you want to change. You can make yourself the best person you can be. You can enrich the lives of others and make the world a better place.

This is how I see life. It’s a gift. It shouldn’t be wasted. Becoming an atheist is the best thing that ever happened to me, because I see the world as it really is. What could be better?

My Meliorism

Through our intelligence and abilities, humans have the capacity to improve themselves and their surroundings. I don’t think we should ever hesitate to do so. There are those who see human interference with the natural world as “playing god”, parenthetically an expression I don’t see the point of: isn’t god supposed to be good?

Some hold the view that humans shouldn’t interfere with nature. This position is ultimately self-destructive when you analyse it. This type of person wants to return to an agrarian society where we cook on stoves and farm our own food and never touch an electrical device. This type of person might call themselves a “technophobe”. But aversion to technology per se is foolish because people misunderstand what technology means. Technology is any artifice that automates or replaces the work of humans. A computer is technology. A well is technology. A spoon is technology. Farming is technological. A ladder is technology.

On the other hand, to count on your fingers is natural but time consuming. To drink water wherever one finds it is the natural thing to do, but unclean and inefficient. To eat food with your bare hands is what humans did for millennia before tools were invented. To eat fruit and nuts off trees as you come across them without future planning is what many animals do. To eat raw meat is what humans originally did.

On the other hand, humans have invented tools for almost as long as recorded history of our species shows. So, you may counter argue that to invent is natural for humans. Whichever way you look at it, the natural argument against technology is meaningless at best and hypocritical at worst.

Humans have always invented tools to improve their quality of life. Those who object to some forms of technology but not others have the difficult task of trying to explain where the line is, and why.

The idea of interfering with the genetic code scares some people. This fear is not entirely unfounded, if for no other reason that we cannot be sure what certain individuals or governments might do (or have already done) with this technology. But this is not an argument against technology or “interference”, any more than a fusion bomb is a valid argument against nuclear power. If there is a will, there is a way. Science and technology are the ‘way’, but they aren’t responsible for the ‘will’, only people are.

General arguments against ‘excessive’ technological interference are usually grounded on arguments from ethics or religion. I believe some ethical arguments are justified, but most are not. I agree that cloning of human beings should be illegal. I cannot think of any possible advantage to individuals or society than can come from replicating a human being. Even if that person no longer exists, someone related to them almost certainly would, and it is doubtful they would approve. That it could be allowed at all might encourage replication of a living person. Therefore, my argument against human cloning is grounded on what might harm a person or society. Conversely, I have no problem with the cloning of human organs. I have no problem with stem cell research or abortion; (by the way, nature aborts far more pregnancies than humans do.)

Some arguments against technology and science when it comes to human beings are predicated on the notion of a soul. This idea is magical and primitive at worst, and simply metaphorical and poetic at best. It has no place in serious debate.

Human life and nature are not sacred ground. There is nothing magical or spiritual about humans. If we can improve ourselves and society through our technology, then let’s do it. The only criterion for determining morality is whether harm is caused.

Humanity’s greatest advantage is our intelligence which allows us to invent. Inventions make our lives better. They allow us to complete our tasks more efficiently. Technology saves time that we would spend performing mundane chores so we can get on with doing more important things, or even things that are just more fun!

The level at which technology simplifies our lives and removes tedious chores is incredibly higher than it was a century ago. We are right to think of this of progress. Technology, in all multiplicities, is the extension of man, whether it is the body or the brain.

Most importantly, science and technology improve quality of life and health in a very real way. Electricity, clean water, medicine, healthcare, safer tools etc, are directly measurable benefits to people all over the world. Assuming we don’t kill ourselves but continue to work together who knows how much more progress we can make in another hundred years’ time. Even quandaries like global warming and the exhaustion of fossil fuels (born more out of cupidity than advancement) which we created for ourselves, have their solutions in more advanced technology, e.g.: cleaner, renewable, more efficient energy sources.

The only limit to our progression and constraint on how remarkable we make this world lies in our capacity to think and invent, and in our willingness to change. We should constantly push the boundaries of our knowledge and abilities. There is nothing to fear.

My Debating Advice

Being able to argue properly and rationally with other people is very important in life. If you know how to structure an argument correctly, and what fallacies to look out for, you will avoid being deceived or out-spoken by scams or faulty logic, and you will avoid making these mistakes yourself, which increases the credibility and force of your arguments.

The following are fallacies to look out for which are very common. But even more important than being able to spot fallacies is the following: always realise that you can be wrong. The strength of your convictions is irrelevant to their validity.

Also, it is important to recognise the difference between a valid argument and sound argument. Valid arguments are structurally correct in that no formal fallacy is committed, but this doesn’t make them true. A sound argument is one that is valid and deductively true. E.g.:

P1: Socrates is a man.

P2: All men die.

Conclusion: Therefore Socrates will die.

Circular Reasoning / Begging the Question

People use the expression “which begs the question” in everyday speech when that they really mean is “raises the question”. To beg the question is actually a logical fallacy whereby your premises entail the conclusion, and the premises are dubious and implicitly assume that conclusion.

I will use two examples taken from the Skeptic’s Dictionary:

P1: Abortion is the unjustified killing of a human being and as such is murder.

P2: Murder is illegal.

Conclusion: Abortion should be illegal.

Abortion should be illegal if it is murder. This is a tautology. No one would dispute that. But notice how the first premise assumes that abortion is indeed murder. This must not be assumed, but proven. There is no proof that abortion is the killing of a human being.

Begging the question is not a formal fallacy because the argument is valid, in that it is not illogical and the syllogism is correct. But the argument is not sound because the first premise is dubious.

Another very common example of begging the question is the argument from design used by theists.

P1: The universe exhibits examples of design.

P2: Where there is a design there must be a designer.

Conclusion: Therefore the universe was designed (ergo god).

There is nothing wrong with Premise 2. The conclusion is also valid based on the premises. But the argument is still circular reasoning: it assumes the universe exhibits design, but this must be proven not assumed. The assumption is that design exists, but isn’t that what the argument should be proving?

Argument from incredulity / lack of imagination fallacy

“You’re not telling me that humans are descended from single-celled organisms! I can’t believe that!”

Someone’s inability to imagine a scenario is not an argument against it.

Argument from ignorance

In this fallacy, lack of evidence for a contrary viewpoint is taken as evidence in favour of another viewpoint. (Contrary is not the same as contradictory.)

e.g.: “It’s impossible to prove that God doesn’t exist!” one might say. Well, yes. But what does that prove? It’s impossible to prove that there isn’t a deity called the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but that doesn’t mean that it does exist.

In law, a person is assumed innocent until proven guilty. Even if there is no particular evidence that someone is innocent, that doesn’t make them guilty, e.g.:

“No one can prove that Tobe wasn’t at the scene at the time of the crime.”

This proves nothing. Evidence that Tobe was at the scene implies guilt. Anything else is circumstantial at best.

Argument from popularity

This is where someone argues that something must be true or false simply because of the number of people who believe it. However, the number of people who believe something is irrelevant to its veracity. E.g.:

“Billions of people throughout the world believe that god has touched their lives; therefore there must be a religious explanation.”

The fallacy is even more obvious when we say something like: “at one point, everyone thought the earth was flat.”

Indeed, a petition of 600 scientific signatures attesting that evolution couldn’t account for the complexity of life was replied to with a petition of 7000 scientific signatures that said that it could. Whether the petition had 601 or 6 million signatures is irrelevant. The sheer weight of believers on its own means nothing. What matters is whether the evidence supports evolution, not how many people believe it.

False dichotomy

This is also known at the false dilemma, bifurcation, the either-or fallacy, or the fallacy of the excluded middle. E.g.:

“If you’re not with us, you’re against us.” Or:

“If you’re not opposed to the death penalty, then you think criminals should get away with anything they do!” Or:

“Either all life arose by random chance, or it was specially created by god.”

The fallacy is to provide only two possible scenarios when in reality there may be many.

In the fallacious examples above:

1. It’s possible to be neutral and on neither side.

2. Rejection of the death penalty doesn’t mean at all that one opposes punishment and justice.

3. There are at least two other possibilities: life arose by non-random slight successive modifications, ever increasing in complexity. Or, god created life and allowed evolution to happen.

Ad hominem

This is an often misunderstood expression. It does not mean insulting or slandering the opponent. What it means is arguing against someone’s point of view based on that person, instead of their argument. E.g.:

“Joey Noname is a convicted sex offender, so what he has to say on politics is irrelevant.” Or:

“How how you be opposed to eating meat, aren’t you wearing leather shoes?!”

Hypocrisy is always good to expose, but it doesn’t prove anything. I could provide a perfectly sound argument in favour of vegetarianism, whilst eating a greasy quarter-pounder. You might think me hypocritical, or even a liar, but it wouldn’t necessarily mean my argument was wrong.

In Conclusion

What makes an argument right or wrong is its soundness. And of course, there is no substitute for proof or evidence.

The above are a few examples of fallacies that I frequently encounter when debating with people. There are of course many more.

Apart from the above, another great piece of advice is to know your own position, and know that of your opponents. There is no substitute for knowing what you’re talking about and knowing the counter-arguments, otherwise not only might you simply lose the debate, you’ll probably embarrass yourself.

Being a good arguer is about being logical, knowing fallacies, and having knowledge of the subject. Above all, personal biases and emotion are irrelevant. Our most cherished beliefs might be lies. Being a good debater is about wanting truth, whatever that may be.

My Oh My

Homosexuality.

In some countries, it’s still a taboo. Opinions may vary between acceptable, merely tolerable, unnatural, or perverse. In some countries and cultures though, it seems to me that being gay is almost seen as cool or fashionable! As with everything else, everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, nobody is entitled to hurt or discriminate others based on their own personal opinion.

Genetics and Evolution

Why has homosexuality been such a taboo throughout human history? My non-expert opinion is that there is a natural general aversion to homosexuality in non-gay people, which you would expect from an evolutionary point of view. Natural selection would tend to favour heterosexuality, but homosexuals can still reproduce and pass this sexual preference on. As long as there would be some advantage to it, even historically, the potential for it would exist. Also, Richard Dawkins’ preferred explanation of homosexuality is that the genes in humans for it have a “homosexual” manifestation under certain genetic conditions. In other words, perhaps the gene that results in homosexual preferences didn’t always have that effect.

To use an example, (which is strictly for illustrative purposes only), he said to imagine a gene that can result in homosexuality under the condition of bottle feeding a baby. Under normal circumstances that gene would either do something else or nothing at all, but bottle feeding ‘activates’ it and produces a different result. (The resulting physical manifestation of genetic makeup is called the phenotype.)

Nature

Whatever the origin of homosexuality in humans, it appears to have existed for as long as history can tell. It is also present in the animal kingdom too. Since the tendency towards it is almost certainly genetic, and ubiquitous in the mammalia class of chordata, it is foolish to call homosexuality ‘unnatural’. The attraction to members of the same sex comes naturally to gay people. To call it a “lifestyle choice” is not only extremely arrogant and condescending, it is profoundly ignorant.

Hundreds of thousands of people throughout history have been the target of humiliation, abuse, and murder because of their sexual preference. They were true to themselves and their feelings. To suggest they “chose” to be gay and suffer needlessly is laughable.

Furthermore, whether something is natural or not has absolutely no bearing on it being right or wrong. From The Skeptic’s Dictionary:

Fleas on dogs are natural. Flea collars are unnatural. Mosquitoes and flies are natural, though most people find them to be a nuisance and prefer the unnatural comfort of mosquitoeless nights and flyless barbecues. Eating meat might be a natural act, but eating cooked meat is unnatural. Most sauces put on meat are made with both natural and artificial ingredients. Salt is natural, but some healthy people avoid salt like the plague.

Civilization is unnatural. Indoor plumbing is unnatural. Corrective lenses are unnatural. So are automobiles.

To have a broken arm set by a physician is unnatural. To let it heal spontaneously would be natural, even if debilitating for life. Getting a medical degree is unnatural. Foraging and experimenting by trial and error would be natural, even if often lethal. Children born with no brains or other monstrous deformities are natural. Brain surgery to remove a tumor is unnatural.

Monogamy is natural among some mammals, but unnatural for most mammals. Reproduction is natural but marriage is unnatural. Using condoms is unnatural. Dying of AIDS is to die of natural causes. Herpes is natural. Raping women is natural to some men, but it is usually regarded as evil nonetheless. Pedophilia seems to be natural in some people, but does that make it good?

The Argument from Nature for or against homosexuality is fallacious.

Religion

Like many fears and aversions, religion took those of homosexuality and ostracised them to a place of ignominy and perversion. In the Old Testament for example, a man who raped a woman was put to death if he was discovered and if she’d obviously struggled. If she didn’t cry loud enough to try and alert others though, she was also put to death. On the other hand, two men who consented to sleep together were executed on the spot. Throughout the bible, homosexuality is put in the same category as bestiality, incest, lying, stealing, murdering, and other detestable sins before god.

No doubt this is due to religion’s psychopathic desire to control every aspect of human life, but I also believe it undoubtedly owes much to the chauvinistic patriarchal societies from which all three major monotheistic religions arose. The act of penetration is seen as submitting someone before you; the woman was the property of the man so this was correct. But for a man to ‘dominate’ another man was seen as detestable, because men cannot be owned like women could.

To the ignorant, homosexuality is probably a grey area, which makes it perfect for those people who don’t like to think for themselves, and have difficult answers spoon-fed to them: “what’s the deal with gay people?” Answer: “Wrong. Sinful.”

Finally, given the nature of homosexuality in humans and mammals, if you believe in creation then clearly gay people are a serious design flaw.

Morality

Since the arguments from nature and religion are spurious and ignorant, what about the moral arguments?

In short, there is no sound moral argument against homosexuality. Crimes have victims, and we judge people based on actions not desires. One sexual desire is the same as another. For straight people, heterosexuality comes natural. For gay people, homosexuality comes natural. For paedophiles, attraction to children comes naturally. We don’t lock two straight kids up for underage sex if they haven’t had it! So it’s irrational to punish anyone for an action they haven’t committed, regardless of their sexual preference. The reason paedophilia is wrong is because it harms children. Incest also can be harmful, just as bestiality is. But homosexuality between two consenting adults harms no one.

If something makes people happy and no one gets hurt, can you think of any possible reason why it is wrong?

Hatred of homosexuality is almost as superstitious as hatred of the Boogie Man or the Devil. It’s like racism and other forms of prejudice because it discriminates against innocent people based on things they cannot control, and shouldn’t even try to!

My Evolution Elucidation

99% of the scientific community accepts evolution as fact. Most religious people do not. Could it be that the scientific community simply understands it whilst most theists do not? Yes. I think it’s as simple as that.

Every time I have debated with a theist who doesn’t believe that evolution occurred, they all claim to have some knowledge of it, or investigated it. It usually takes less than a minute of discussing this to discover that they have little to no real knowledge of evolution at all.

Let me say this now: I don’t wish to be critical of anyone for simply not knowing. Many people (like me and those close to me) were brought up and fed lies and misinformation about evolution all their life. Others have simply not had access to it. What I object to is people who talk about evolution and try to criticise it whilst not knowing even simple things about it.

Let’s face it: the only reason theists object to evolution is because it contradicts what they believe about the world. Since they assume their beliefs cannot be wrong, they assume the other person is. The ‘other person’ is anyone or anything! But in this case we’re talking about evolution. This is silly for two reasons. 1: whenever there is a debate over anything, science has always won. Always. That’s just a fact. Just like a heliocentric solar system, flat earth, young earth, etc: whenever religion argues with science it loses. Now, that might not mean that science will necessarily always win, but it has an infinitely better track record, so opposing it seems foolish. 2: theists in the past have opposed scientists but eventually had to recant their objections when they were proven wrong – they didn’t have to reject their beliefs necessarily, but they did have to admit that their interpretations were wrong! E.g.: Galileo. (Even in recent times for example, the Catholic Church has had to admit that evolution of man is a fact.)

Another example of interpretation: Genesis and the creative period. 6 literal days is ludicrous. Eventually, (when they could no longer keep a straight face) many religions conceded that the 6 days couldn’t have been literal. Many interpret them as symbolic. Now, whilst I disagree with them (there is nothing symbolic about the days of Genesis and which parts of the bible are literal and which are symbolic? And who gets to decide that??), it does show an effort to amend faith in light of evidence; something I actively encourage!

Why can’t today’s believers concede that their interpretations of scripture might be in error?? After all, surely god wouldn’t lie to us or plant false evidence of things that never happened. If god exists, then he is the Master Scientist! How better to praise him and understand him than through science!

So, as briefly as possible, let’s quickly review evolution and the truths and lies about it:

What is the theory of evolution?

Evolution is the scientific theory that all life on earth has evolved from simpler forms of life via mutation to produce variety, and natural selection to hone that variety into usefulness.

Natural selection is a fact. It is simply true that anything better at doing something will survive in that environment better than something that doesn’t do ‘it’ as well. Natural selection is true in life, in the workplace, in business, and in nature. In nature, the things to ‘do well’ or ‘be good at’ are survival and reproduction.

Mutation is a fact. It is simply true that genetic copying errors lead to different effects in life-forms, however slight. Mutations can be deleterious, neutral, or beneficial. If a mutation is so deleterious that it inhibits reproduction, the gene will not last long enough to get passed on, and if it does it will be displaced by non-deleterious mutations. Most mutations are neutral in that they have no observably immediate effect on life. Those mutations that are beneficial (in whatever way) will be selected for (e.g.: the human mutation of an enzyme which allows certain races to tolerate large quantities of milk. Some ethnic groups have not evolved this enzyme and are incapable of consuming fresh milk and dairy in large volumes. Other examples of successful mutations might be: slightly longer legs, slightly sharper teeth etc.)

Mutations need only be slight, and the difference only very small. Nature is ruthless, and the line between life and death is incredibly narrow! If you can run only very slightly faster than your rival, you can catch that bit more food, or escape a predator. It doesn’t matter what the real scale is, the point is that the line exists, and any slight advantage will make you “better” at doing what you do, and ultimately made you a better reproducer. Therefore, this advantage will be passed on to your descendants, and you will displace those without it. And the competition will continue: wilder beasts get faster and tougher, so lions get stronger and faster. As you can imagine, life will increase in complexity and get better and better. As time goes on, the more complex and “better” it will become. How long has life had to adapt and improve on earth? Billions of years! No wonder we see the complexity and efficiency we do in nature!

But there is no guiding force. It is a simple escapable result of natural mechanical forces in action. Natural selection will always be a fact of life, but without mutation evolution would be impossible.

By the way, by “better at doing what you do”, I don’t mean being better or more advanced in some universal or moral way. Cheetahs are excellent sprinters. Sharks are great swimmers. Monkeys are excellent acrobats. Humans are excellent thinkers. None of these life-forms is “better” than the other. Humans aren’t more ‘evolved’ than any other life-form on earth: all life is very very good in its own environment, doing what it does best. That is because life adapts to the environment. The environment never adapts to lifeforms!

When evolution occurs on small scales within species, we call this micro-evolution. When it occurs on large scales over time resulting in creatures being so different they are classed as new species, we call this macro evolution. They are both extensions of the same indubitable principle. They both occur by mutation and natural selection, and gradually. The only difference is the time involved. So, for those who accept micro evolution but not macro evolution, this is a profound ignorance of evolution! It’s like saying you accept where volcanoes come from, but not mountains.

Natural selection and mutation are how we explain the evolution of life. This is the theory: the explanatory part. But, there is no doubt that life has evolved. Absolutely no doubt at all. In fact, evolution is a better understood fact and better explained theory than gravity! If you’re a theist, that’s something you’ve probably never been told before.

That all life-forms have a common ancestor is a fact. It’s a fact because the nested hierarchy of all life-forms proves that all species are related, and the relational distance decreases as you go further back through time. Ubiquitous DNA, copying errors, vestigial organs etc, all prove that all life is related and commonly descended. Let’s take just one of those examples: vestigial organs: whales have hind limbs under their skin. Humans have an appendix, tailbone, wisdom teeth, a malformed third-eye, and an atrophied muscle in our feet that we don’t use (but apes do because they have superior dexterity in their feet which our ancestors would have had). It is impossible to explain these anomalies without evolution. Those who believe life was specially created cannot explain this “bad design” unless they pretend god intentionally created useless parts in life-forms. Or worse still, they say that there is an unknown purpose for these vestigial organs. This non-answer is worse than no response at all!

So, that evolution occurs is not debatable. Just like when you drop an apple, it will fall to the ground. It’s a fact. Gravity is a fact. Evolution is fact. We explain gravity with the Theory of Gravity, and we explain evolution with the Theory of Evolution. So, is evolution a fact or theory? Both!

Evolution is one of the best examples of science we have. It has been observed directly and indirectly. It is powerfully explained and incredibly predictive. It has never been significantly changed in all this time. It allows us to clearly understand nature at a biological and behavioural level. In fact, it would be impossible to perform biology, zoology, psychology, or geology without knowing basic evolution. The Theory of Evolution could be proved wrong, but so far it hasn’t been. It could be proved wrong by a better scientific theory that replaces natural selection and mutation as explanations. But that wouldn’t change the fact that life has evolved and continues to do so. No more than if we replace the Theory of Gravity with a better one, apples will stop falling and planets will stop spinning. Evolution is a steady inalterable fact of nature. To deny it is just as stupid as claiming the earth is flat. No exaggeration.

Some theists like to derive strawmen of atheism and humanism based on evolution. They might say that life is meaningless, or purposeless. They might say that evolution implies a “survival of the fittest” morality, or that nature should be our guide to behaviour. Anyone who says this doesn’t know what they’re talking about. To claim that evolution says something about morals is just as pathetic as saying that gravity, or a heliocentric solar system, implies something about the meaning of life.

To quote Robert Carroll again, life has no purpose, but lives do! Nature simply is. It tells us nothing about morality or how we should treat people. And whether you like it or not, the brute fact is: evolution is a fact. Even if realising evolution made you a heartless miserable evil nihilist, evolution would still be a fact! However, accepting the facts should be what everyone should do anyway. How you feel about facts is irrelevant. Whether facts appear to disagree with your beliefs is immaterial.

If you’re a creationist you have a choice: you can either admit that your beliefs require adjusting, or you can discard them altogether. Or you could pretend that the facts are wrong. Without doing any research you might just assume that you’re right anyway. Without understanding evolution or being able to explain the first thing about it, you might just kid yourself that you’ve studied it and fairly rejected it. You might assume it’s an evil conspiracy by atheists, or a lie from the Devil. You might even switch off as though nothing will ever trouble your faith.

Well, it’s your choice. This is not the article to discuss morality, right or wrong, philosophy, religion, or atheism. This is about a magnificent incredible theory that changed the world, and revolutionised how we explain it. It is essential that all theists must totally understand evolution if they’re to be taken seriously in debates with atheists and scientists. Hopefully this article is a small step in clarifying the facts.

Whether you’re a creationist or not, isn’t your goal the truth?? So, none of us has anything to fear…