"I Don't Know, Therefore God": The Last "Valid" Argument for God's Existence

Very few arguments for the existence of gods have been as enduring as the God of the Gaps Fallacy. It was very likely the first argument which emerged, and currently it is the only one which has remained. Forget the cosmological argument, the complexity argument, the "prime mover" argument, the wager; the one remaining argument for God is hinged on the power of sheer ignorance alone. It manifests in two general varieties - "I don't know the answer to this question, therefore God" (personal incredulity), or "There is currently no scientific answer to this question, therefore God" (gap in knowledge, hence God of the Gaps). And no one is better at finding the right God-sized gaps than one of Jamaica's more vocal theologians Rev. Clinton Chisholm, who wrote the column "Scientific Problems for Atheists" in the Gleaner of Monday August 31st.

Before I address the main point of Rev. Chisholm's column, it's important to speak generally about, what appears to be, the last remaining gap for the kingdom of heaven - the origin of life. Not too long ago, this gap was a little bigger since it extended to the origin of mankind, but it has since shrunk given the overbearing evidence that modern humans evolved from earlier hominid species, just like all modern life forms evolved from earlier ancestral progenitors. No scientist of any repute today doubts that evolution is a fact - the fossil record and the genetic information proves that ALL life on our planet evolved from a single biological source. So, that gap in knowledge has been plugged for quite some time now; what remains a mystery is how exactly this life form emerged. And this new gap is where God has crammed his entire kingdom - it is an extremely tight fit, and given the recent advances in the field of abiogenesis, the lease is running out on that gap too. God and company will soon be homeless.

Turning now to Rev. Chisholm's column, what we find is nothing new. Chisholm resurrects the usual tired tactics of creationists - referencing once prominent scientists who slipped into senility and then ended up on the payroll of some fundamentalist Christian "science" board (e.g. Dean H. Kenyon); citing from work which has been been heavily discredited for decades (e.g. "Evolution from Space"); and worst of all putting words into the mouths of authors (e.g. Chisholm wastes no time in suggesting that the authors are "hinting" at the supernatural, even though they said no such thing). This, of course, is expected. Men steeped in theology have a tenuous grasp on scientific concepts at best. Chisholm himself doesn't actually know what Darwin's theory of evolution is, as evidenced by his Facebook post:

Darwin neither claimed, nor believed anything of the sort. Darwin set out to explain how it is we have so many different species of animals on the planet, NOT how the first life form originated. Darwin noticed that animal and plant breeders could modify a variety of traits in different species of livestock and plant life by a process called "artificial selection." He then wondered, and demonstrated, that an unaided parallel process is at work in nature doing the same thing - "natural selection." The discovery and study of DNA was the last piece of the puzzle to vindicate Darwin. The mystery of the origin of that first life form is certainly an attractive gap to stuff the supernatural, but given the fact of evolution, we have already erased the possibility of a literal creation story a la the book of Genesis. If evolution is a fact, and it is, then Genesis must be a fairy-tale. How do conservative Christians like Chisholm deal with this problem? Do they scramble to revise their theology and produce ideas like "theistic evolution" or do they buckle down on old time creationism and weather the onslaught of being called "dunce?" (Just take a peek at the comments under Chisholm's article to see what I mean).

All in all, there is one thing we cannot forget whenever God apologists like Chisholm step up to dazzle us with theological gymnastics. To date, not ONE single supernatural occurrence has ever been verified. The tally for religions demonstrating supernatural occurrences sits comfortably at an embarrassing 0 (zero) and has been that way since the beginning of religion. Science, on the other hand, has overturned religious claims time and time again, ad nauseum. Why should we think anything is going to be different now? Every claim to the supernatural has either been convincingly proven false, or else cannot be proven at all (yes, how could one "prove" imaginary creatures like angels have wings?) With a track record like that, why even bother giving serious attention when they cry for wolf (or God) yet again?


- Cool Dude.

Skeptacles (pt. 2)

Ahhhh... Another Sunday and loving the fact that I am Jamaican. The Jamaican track and field team has dominated once again and Jamaican patriotism has been at an all time high this week. What a wonderful feeling.  

So, last week we spoke a bit about Jamaica's religiosity and how it's affecting the lives of Jamaicans and Jamaica as a country.  We peeked into the lives of sister Hyacinth, which unfortunately is not doing any better than she was before.  To be honest she is even more worried than before because although the church was praying for her recovery her diagnosis from the doctor unfortunately didn't come with "divine" intervention or intercession and her liver is almost completely shut down. She will need to have a liver transplant or she may be not live beyond this year's end. My heart goes out to her and her family.  I can see she has gone back to church again today because she honestly believes that she is a good person and has been through so much in life.  With her personal belief in having a relationship with God and her pastor's constant religious ministrations, Sister Hyacinth truly believes she will be OK. 

Now I understand believing or having faith in pulling through the most dire of situations because of divine intervention if you are a religious or spiritual person, but I can't understand why she is not actively reaching out to her family to see if anyone is interested in being tested to see if they are a donor match for her and if they would help in saving her life.  Praying every day seems to be the way that Jamaicans like Sister Hyacinth and most religious people deal with serious life changing issues.  It pains me sometimes to see and know that Jamaicans are so indoctrinated and borderline narcissistic in thinking personal prayer request to a God sitting in the clouds is the preferred method to problem solving. Why do people really pray, and does prayer really work? Those are the question most Jamaicans need to ask themselves in order to exact change in their lives.  So let put on these Skeptacles for a minute and so we can see things for what they really are not for what we want to believe them to be. 

Prayer. Such a powerful thing in the Jamaican life and experience.  We grow up learning how to pray in church and from our parents. We learn to ask for things in life from a God that knows us personally. Down to every follicle of hair on our very heads.  It's such a wonderful fulling to believe that we are being protected and cradled personally by a all powerful God.  The being that created us all and loves us unconditionally.  (Inhales deeply... Then exhales). That feeling is good isn't it? It's the same feeling you can get from so many other things in life; like finding someone you are in love with, knowing that you have the winning hand at a game of dominoes, winning the lottery when you know your lights are about to get disconnected tomorrow or getting that new job that will bring home some much needed money in your life.  It's such a wonderful feeling isn't it? That's the feeling prayer gives to you. A feelings of connection and release.  A feeling of calm and belief that everything will be OK tomorrow.  The problem with that is that the feeling of elation, calm or         all-will-be-right-with-the-world, is just a feeling that our minds produce on its own to help deal with the hardships of life. 

For us as Jamaicans to believe that prayer works we will have to believe that we and our personal prayers are better than everyone else's prayer in the world.  We would have to accept the fact that we are so misguided by religion and narcissistic that we actually believe that our personal prayers should be answered by a God.  Think about it for a minute. I often get so annoyed with people when they say things like: "Thank God for making me win the lottery because I really needed the money." or "Thank God for saving my life from pneumonia because I though I would die in that hospital."  Have you thought about it enough? Now let's look at this clearly. There are so many children out there starving every day in Jamaica. There are so many women being beaten and abused.  So many children being raped daily by some man in their family or community that is praying every day just like you for help from the same God you are expecting to answer your prayers. Their prayers don't get answered because they are still being abused and staving.  The innocent children are still getting raped every day but you win the lottery and actually believe that God believes that your light bill was more important than all the other prayers.  Please understand how narcissistic you have to be to believe that your prayers are more important. 

So why was your prayers answered and not the starving children or children being raped? Hmm? Maybe it was their fault right? Maybe they are not Christians or in God's favour, right?  How many Christian families do you know of that suffer every day that are praying every day and their prayers are not being answered but your prayer is being answered why? You barely go to church and you only pray when you might need something in your life so why your prayers and not others? I can tell you. It's because prayers don't work. There is no one sitting on any cloud answering personal prayers for some and not others.  We need to stop thinking that prayers are a fix all for our problems in life.  We need to let go of this religious narcissism and start living in this real world. We can allow religion to distort the truth in our lives.  Your prayers are not more important than anyone else.  We exact change in our own lives when we work hard at changing our own lives.  Some people don't have the means to change their lives on their own. We tell our children if they they just believe and pray then their problems will be solved. So why are we losing so many of our children to violence, to hunger and to pain?  

Prayer does not work. It only gives us a false sense of security that things will be handled by divine intervention and intercession but the truth is our lives will only be changed by us. It will only be changed by people helping people.  Stop waiting for the lord to heal the world and focus on healing yourself.  Tell your children that if they are being hurt and abused to tell someone not tell the lord because if they are telling the lord and praying to have the abuse end and it's still happening it's either the lord does not care about them or their is no lord there to receive their prayers. Either way we need to break this cycle of divine dependency.  We need to take hold of our lives.   

So let's tell Sister Hyacinth that although she is praying for divine healing, she should try to look for help here on earth.  She should try all she can do to save her own life.  We need to start looking at the world differently.  Take off the religious eye wear and put on these "skeptacles" and see life as it really is.  Ask yourself this question when you have time to today; "Are my prayers more important than everyone else's prayers in Jamaica?" "Am I that selfish and narcissistic to believe that there is a God that is watching over me personally and not watching over the innocent children dying every day and being abused every day by the hands of a predator?"  If you can honestly answer yes, my problems are more important than everyone else's, then you are losing your humanity and have a serious deficiency in empathy and morality.  

I have to finish making my Sunday dinner,  you know how us Jamaicans like to cook a big meal on Sunday lol, so let's catch up next week and talk more about your empathy, morality and why most people in Jamaica are morally superior to the God of the bible.  Yes I just said that.

To be continued...

Guest blogger Peter-John Williams

"Skeptacles": Seeing the world through skeptical looking glass

Guest blogger Peter-John Williams.
Administrator of Facebook group
"Freethinkers & Coexisters Island"

Another early Sunday morning and many in Jamaica are donning their Sunday's best, making sure they look as presentable as possible to enter into church and listen to the gospels being preached by one of Jamaica's many self-proclaimed prophets and holy men. As some are running down the check list of what to bring to church, Ms. Mary is  making a mental note to suggest a group prayer for sister Hyacinth in church so the good Lord will help cure her of this devil induced liver disease she has been afflicted with and making sure to also ask the Lord for help this month because the electricity bill is past due and the lights is about to be disconnected. 

I have to pause for a minute while I put on these "Skeptacles" to ponder and ask myself if many of these Jamaicans ever stop to think about what religion has done to their lives and how the religiosity of the nation has crippled progression and intellectualism in this once great island we call Jamaica. 

Jamaica is culturally and historically rooted in religion, or should I say some form of Christianity. Although Jamaica has a few non-christian religious sects such as Hindus and Muslims, Jamaicans and Jamaica as a country, are predominantly Christian.  So let's try to identify how Jamaica became a Christian nation and how Christianity affects the people of this island.  

Jamaica, for hundreds of years, was colonized by England and was subjected to British rule up until August 6,1962. The African slaves that were brought to Jamaica historically never worshipped or knew anything of Christianity. In order to break and further subjugate the African slaves in Jamaica, physical torture was not enough because it created anger and rebellious behaviour so the slaves were also captured mentally by using Christianity.  The mental fear of eternal damnation in Hell and the hope of eternal bliss and paradise in Heaven was the datum in the total domination of the African slaves in Jamaica.  Total indoctrination was the key to having a successful colony that utilized subjugated slave labour, because even in the very bible that the slaves were taught from and were to use to gain understanding of salvation, were the passages on Slavery and how slaves should obey their masters...  

Fast forward to today and you will see that Jamaica is still enslaved mentally by the same doctrines and book that held us in captivity for hundreds of years.  Christianity facilitates and incubates anti-intellectualism in Jamaica.  Jamaicans are constantly bombarded with the idea that God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent by the church, the preachers, by friends, family, by the music and even the government, when in fact those ideas are not only unverifiable, but simply not true in this real world that we live in.  

Looking through our "Skeptacles" we will uncover different ways of looking at Jamaica and the world to find new ways of enlightenment. We will see how much better Jamaica and our individual lives could be if we started seeing through the eyes of a skeptic and not through the eyes of the religious.  You will start to see that although Ms. Mary has good intentions for praying for sister Hyacinth's liver, it won't do any good in the sense of "divine" healing because there is no such thing. We will start to see that the liver disease wasn't caused by the devil but because sister Hyacinth has been a closet alcoholic for many years because of her depression due to her husband leaving her for another woman. The amount of alcohol consumed by her in her lifetime has damaged her liver and only a transplant will save her life. Not prayers.  Ms. Mary will also recognize that the light company will not take payment in prayers and that her husband needs to stop gambling away his paycheck and talking a hold of the house hold finances would be a better way of solving her problems. 

The "Skeptacles" guest blogs will focus on Jamaica, Jamaican religiosity and a path for healing and moving forward progressively.  We have been blinded for too long.  It's time to see with new eyes. 

Continued next week... 

Cricket, not so lovely cricket - Boyne's no-balls to atheism

The following is the unabridged verion of a recent Yardie Skeptics letter to the Gleaner newspaper in Jamaica in response to a letter written by journalist Ian Boyne. The links to Gleaner publications can be found here - Boyne's article, Yardie Skeptics response

In cricket terms, our friend and leading theist bowler Ian Boyne has once again been delivering a series of philosophical no-balls at the stumps of atheism, and perhaps a few deliveries well wide of the stumps altogether.  Bowling to Dr. Patrick White, a leading atheist batsman, Ian’s wayward deliveries include assertions that:

*Darwinian atheists have no basis for asserting objective morality or moral realism, and that by doing so they were intellectual parasites.”

*Evolutionary theory and atheism have no ontological basis for positing objective morality, and that moral subjectivism or constructivism is a necessary corollary of atheism

* Without a belief “ in God or some supernatural reality outside of nature”, atheists have no basis for protesting human-rights abuses or being against genocide and slavery, while remaining silent on the slaughter of millions of chickens, cows and sheep.

At the heart of Ian’s propensity for wayward deliveries, is his philosophical confusion about the nature of atheism – which in turn arises from his theistic investment in supernaturalism.   Despite previous attempts to school Ian, he is yet to appreciate that atheism is not a philosophy, but merely disbelief in god(s).  As a matter of logic, non-belief cannot translate into affirmative acceptance of, or belief in Darwinisim, evolutionary theory, or any other secular philosophy, including human rights. and secular humanism.  .  In this regard, NON-belief is not, nor can it be a source of  moral concern for humans or other sentient beings.  Such a concern arises from from subscribing affirmatively to philosophies such as human rights or secular humanism.  One might simultaneously be an atheist or theist AND an  advocate against slavery, homophobia, racism and sexism.   Being an advocate is not contingent on having, or lacking religious belief.    

Accordingly, Ian’s claims about atheism’s “moral subjectivism” or its lack of ontological credentials regarding morality are no-balls that have been pitched laughably wide of the stumps of atheism.   

On the matter of atheism and "animal rights", Ian no doubt thinks he's pitched an unplayable delivery on the stumps of atheism.  But a replay of the delivery reveals that Ian has once again overstepped the crease of reason and delivered a spectacular no-ball.

The essence of Ian’s contention is that , Darwinism, with a corresponding disbelief in a supernatural order condemns humans to being no more than just another species or "merely a part of nature", with no transcendental place for humans above animals and the rest of nature. Based on this conflation of humans with the rest of nature, Ian argues that atheists should be as passionate about animal rights as they are about human rights. If they do indeed assert the rights and dignity of humans to the exclusion of animals,, they are parasites living off the “intellectual heritage of Judaeo-Christian religion”.  

This is a laughable proposition, given that this very same Judaeo-Christian heritage  rampantly and unapologetically promotes the subjugation and oppression of humans and animals alike.  This includes human and animal sacrifice to appease the temperamental Christian god.  Ian’s contention  is all the more risible, given that  Christianity is largely built on the much celebrated torture and death of its central figure - Jesus Christ - at the behest of “God”, a deity that demanded bloody expiation for human “sin”.

For its part, Abrahamic religions have reduced the entire non-human species on the planet to “clean” vs “unclean”, or food vs not food. That we even have such a thing as human rights or “animal rights” (and it’s younger cousin “environmental rights”) is due entirely to secular concern for reducing or eliminating suffering that is otherwise warranted by these religions.  To the extent that Christianity and its Abrahamic siblings have abandoned their heritage of cruelty to humans and animals the extent to which they have become intellectual parasites  living off secular philosophies that promote the protection and promotion of human dignity and the diminution, if not elimination of cruelty to non-human animals.

The apocalyptic nature of Christianity requires the fiery destruction of the planet earth, including all its human and non-human denizens.  Our wayward bowler of supernatural spin doesn’t come anywhere close to explaining how such a doctrine might ground, much less promote the universal well-being of these hapless denizens.

Happily, in cricket, batsmen are allowed to score off no-balls in cricket.  Rhetorically speaking Ian, if you’d like to know where we’ve dispatched your deliveries, I’d suggest you look on the roof of the pavilion or outside of the cricket ground altogether.

We are, etc.

Hilaire Sobers

Clive Forrester

Co-hosts of the social media programmes 'Skeptically Speaking' and 'Yardie Skeptics'. Email: yardieskeptics@gmail.com

On True Sacrifice

Over the past few days, I've been engaged in several discussions with theists on the subject of Easter and the story of Jesus' sacrifice which, as most would argue, was the most significant event in the history of Christianity (notwithstanding the fact that the Gospels make a holy mess of corroborating the details surrounding the event). Unlike Christmas, the other big Christian celebration, Easter tends to be decidedly more sombre, as well as generally less commercialized, and is usually treated as a time of quiet reflection as opposed to joyous celebration (notwithstanding the fact that Jamaica Carnival - a hit with local Christians - actually occurs around this time). But just like Christmas, any attempt at interrogating the tenets on which the holy day was founded tend to be met reactions which range from dismissal to outright rage. Such was my experience when I questioned the authenticity of Jesus' alleged "sacrifice."

Incidentally, what sparked my online discussions was a question from a Christian, one not uncommon around this time of year - "Why did Jesus have to die?" A simple and honest question, one which I imagine any well thinking Christian would've asked upon first introduction to the horrific and macabre episode which is the crucifixion. As the Bible shows, Jesus' sacrifice follows a long line of blood sacrifice practised in Hebrew mythology for atonement from sin - whenever you incurred the wrath of the Hebrew god Yahweh, an animal (or humans a few times apparently) had to be sacrificed to appease his anger. In Christian mythology, Jesus represents the last sacrifice; a pure "lamb" lead to the slaughter for the remission of the sins of all mankind, everywhere, forever more. The whole foundation of Christianity is hinged on this death - asking why it had to happen cuts right through to core of the belief system. The answers tend to be well rehearsed platitudes regurgitated from Sunday school lessons - "he did it because he loves us so much", "there can be no forgiveness without the shedding of blood", "sin is so awful that a life had to be sacrificed on our behalf" and so on ad infinitum. From where I stand however, no sacrifice took place.

Assuming we are using the standard definition of sacrifice - which is to give something up to gain something else - what exactly did Jesus lose? We know it was not his life. The story indicates that Jesus went into his own crucifixion knowing full well that he would "die" on Friday evening but be up and about in time for Sunday brunch. Additionally, if we accept Catholic dogma, there was no break in the continuity of his life - he went from the cross, to the underworld to preach up a storm, back up to the surface to say goodbye, then flew off into heaven. So, technically speaking, Jesus did not sacrifice his life - he appears to have sacrificed a couple days on planet earth. And, how genuine could such a sacrifice be anyway when you are fully aware, without a shred of doubt, that what you lament about giving up will be returned to you after two sundowns. You cannot claim to have sacrificed a thing, but yet it still remains firmly in your possession. Jesus gave nothing up.

So why then did Jesus have to die? My alternate explanation is that this is just how the most enduring hero epics are written - the hero dies a martyr. What better way to accomplish the following:

1. Adding instant credibility (if not outright vindication) to your cause - your life, after all, is no easy thing to gamble with. A hero however sacrifices their life since the cause is more valuable than the life of any one person, including the hero. 
2. If there was any doubt among followers about the authenticity of the hero, martyrdom removes it. 
3. Related to the point above, followers are now imbued with the necessary confidence and certitude to carry the cause through to completion. Indeed, many heroes have accomplished more by their death than they could've ever accomplished in ten life times. 

Who could deny the appeal of such a story? Which believer would not be stirred to action by such a brave act? The "Passion" story, like several other hero epics before it, all follow the same general melodramatic template - a tumultuous adventure filled with conflict and strife, culminates in a climatic finale where the hero of the story must forfeit their life for the greater good of the cause.  It is literary gold, even if historically it never actually happened. Such appears to be the case with the Easter story - a sacrifice which never was, for a cause which, at present, seems to be in decline. 

Cool Dude.