Discussions re God on Sheffield Forum

"I know there has been lots of "discussions" on here about God and I saw this interesting tweet on Twitter tonight, which I thought summed it up nicely.

For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible."

But that's just not true as there are lots of things which could convince me to believe in a god and so far as I can tell the same applies to most other atheists.

In fact some atheists (in this case the excellent Ebon) even go to the trouble of drawing up lists of the kinds of things which would convince them in the hope that it will improve the quality of the emails theists send them:


The Theist's Guide to Converting Atheists
What would convince an atheist that a religion is true?

In several years of debating atheism and theism, I have made an observation. Ask any believer what would convince him he was mistaken and persuade him to leave his religion and become an atheist, and if you get a response, it will almost invariably be, "Nothing - I have faith in my god." Although such people may well exist, I personally have yet to meet a theist who would acknowledge even the possibility that his belief was in error. Many theists, by their own admission, structure their beliefs so that no evidence could possibly disprove them. In short, they are closed-minded, and have been taught to be closed-minded. (For more on this, see "Thoughts in Captivity".)

In light of this, it is ironic that atheists are often accused of being the closed-minded ones. Fundamentalist proselytizers very frequently claim that we are hard-hearted, that we are dogmatic and irrational, that we reject God based on preconceived bias, and so on. Such claims result from psychological projection. Incapable of coping with the fact that there are some people who genuinely do not believe in their god, these theists simply deny that such people exist, and instead insist that everyone thinks the same way they do. Therefore, people who reach different conclusions than them must have some secret ulterior motive for not believing. This is truly ridiculous, but unfortunately, some people really believe it.

Thus, in the spirit of proving that atheists' minds are not closed, I've assembled below a list of everything I can think of that I would accept as proof that a given religion is true. Also included are things that I would accept as circumstantial evidence of a particular religion's truth and things that would not be acceptable to me as proof of anything. While I do not claim to speak for all atheists, I would confidently say that any religion that could produce one of the things from the first list would probably gain a great number of converts.

The first category deals with things that would absolutely convince me of the truth of a particular religion. If shown any of these, I would convert on the spot.

Verified, specific prophecies that couldn't have been contrived.
If the Bible, for example, said, "On the first day of the first month in the year two thousand and ten, the pillars of the earth will shake and a great part of the New World will be lost to the sea," and then January 1, 2010 comes and a tremendous earthquake sends California to the bottom of the Pacific Ocean, I would become a believer. No points are awarded under any of the following conditions:

If the prophecy is vague, unclear or garbled (like Nostradamus' ramblings, for example). It must be detailed, specific and unambiguous in its prediction and wording.

If the prophecy is trivial. Anyone could predict that it will be cold next winter, or that this drought/plague/flood will eventually subside. The prophecy must predict something surprising, unlikely or unique.

If the prophecy is obviously contrived for other reasons. No official seer or court astrologer ever predicted that the king he worked for would be a brutal, evil tyrant who would ruin the country.

If the prophecy is self-fulfilling; i.e., if the mere fact of the prophecy's existence could cause people to make it come true. The Jewish people returned to their homeland in Israel just as the Bible said they would, but this isn't a genuine prediction - they did it because the Bible said they would. The predicted event can't be one that people could stage.

If the prophecy predicts an event that already happened and the writing of the prophecy itself can't be shown to have preceded the event.

If the prophecy predicts an event that already happened and the happening of that event can't be verified by independent evidence. For example, Christian apologists claim that Jesus fulfilled many Old Testament prophecies, but the authors of the New Testament obviously had access to those prophecies also; what would have prevented them from writing their story to conform to them? The extra-biblical evidence for the existence of Jesus is so scanty that it is impossible to disprove such a proposal.

And finally, if the prophecy is the lone success among a thousand failures. Anyone can throw prophecies against the wall until one sticks. The book or other source from which it comes must have at least a decently good record on other predictions.
These conditions, I think, are eminently reasonable, and are only what would be expected of a true prophet with a genuine gift.


Scientific knowledge in holy books that wasn't available at the time.
If the Bible (or any other religious text) contained some piece of knowledge that the people of the time couldn't possibly have known but that is now known to be true, that would be highly convincing to me. A passage about the atomic theory of matter or the heliocentric solar system would be interesting, but not conclusive, since the Greeks, for example, proposed those ideas long ago independent of any claim to divine revelation.

A mention of the theory of evolution would have been impressive. A reference to the germ theory of disease, or the laws of electromagnetics, would have been compelling. But what would be indisputable proof would be an elucidation of a truly modern theory of physics, such as relativity or quantum mechanics - not just something that the people of the time couldn't possibly have known of, but something so counter-intuitive that the odds against guessing at it correctly would be staggering. Just think: What if Jesus had said something like this?
"Verily, verily, I say unto thee that thine energy is as thine mass times the speed of light multiplied unto itself."

Of course people of the time would have been baffled, but just imagine how many souls it would have saved today. As with the prophecy item, there must be independent verification that the piece of knowledge was written in texts that existed well before it was actually discovered by science.


Miraculous occurrences, especially if brought about through prayer.
If cities condemned as sinful by preachers tended to explode in flames for no apparent reason, if glowing auras of holy light sometimes appeared around believers to protect them from harm, or if atheists and only atheists were regularly struck by lightning, this would be compelling proof. But it wouldn't have to be so dramatic; even minor but objectively verifiable miracles would do, especially if they could be invoked by prayer. If a hospital did a double-blind study to determine if intercessory prayer helps the sick, and it was discovered that only the patients prayed for by members of a certain religion experienced a dramatic, statistically significant increase in recovery rate, and this result could be repeated and confirmed, I would convert. This one shouldn't be so hard, especially for the Christians - after all, Jesus told them that they would be able to work miracles through prayer!


Any direct manifestation of the divine.
I'm not that hard to convert; I'll be happy to believe in God if he tells me to in person, as long as he does it in such a way that I could be sure that it was not a hallucination (for example, in the presence of multiple reliable witnesses, none of which are in a highly emotional or otherwise altered state). Where are the voices speaking out of burning bushes, or out of thin air when people get baptized? In Old Testament times, Moses saw God so often that he knew him on a first-name basis. Why doesn't this happen any more today?


Aliens who believed in the exact same religion.
And one more, though this one is just a bit off the wall. If humanity was to contact an extraterrestrial civilization, and if said extraterrestrials had a religion that was exactly like some religion on Earth, I would become a believer. (Though it would raise some interesting theological problems for Christians. Does Jesus have to travel to every planet in the universe individually, dying and being resurrected on each one?)

The second category deals with things that would not be conclusive, but that would count as circumstantial evidence. Show me one of these and I might not convert right away, but your religion will look a lot better to me.

A genuinely flawless and consistent holy book.
True inerrancy is, so to speak, the holy grail of theism. Almost every religion claims their scripture is perfect, but none that I know of have actually met this exacting standard; I have yet to read a holy text entirely without error or self-contradiction. A book that was free of such problems would be circumstantial evidence in favor of the religion that possessed it, but not compelling, since this is still explicable as the result of purely human forces.


A religion without internal disputes or factions.
It seems reasonable to expect that, if there existed a god that was interested in revealing itself to humanity and desired that we follow its commands, that god would write down whatever instructions it had to give us in a way that was only amenable to one interpretation. Thus, if a religion was true, we might expect that no factions or sects would form within it and all members of that religion would speak with one voice regarding ethical and theological issues. Why the alternative scenario should ever hold for an inspired religion is not clear. Did God intend to communicate his message clearly but failed to do so? However, since this could still be the result of human influence, it would only be circumstantial, not conclusive, evidence in favor of a given religion's truth.


A religion whose followers have never committed or taken part in atrocities.
If a given religion's sacred text consistently promotes peace, compassion and nonviolence, and if that religion's history reflects that fact, that religion would look much more attractive to me. Historically, almost every religion that has ever had the power to do so has persecuted those who believed differently, and I do not think it likely that a morally good deity would allow his chosen faith's good name to be smeared by evil and fallible humans.

A religion that had a consistent record of winning its jihads and holy wars.
Strangely, none do. One can only wonder why.

The final category deals with things that would not convince me; none of the following would persuade me to rethink my position. To date, all the evidence I have ever seen presented for any religion falls into this category.

Speaking in tongues or other pseudo-miracles.
To convince me, a miracle would have to be genuine, verifiable, and represent a real and inexplicable divergence from the ordinary. Anything that can be explained by peer pressure, the power of suggestion or the placebo effect does not count. Favorable coincidences or kind or courageous acts performed by human beings also do not meet this standard. (This post clearly illuminates the difference: "Biblical miracles aren't about accidents and people saying 'Whew, that was close.' Biblical miracles are people raising their hands and telling something impossible to happen, and it happens.") Seeing the Virgin Mary in a water stain or Mother Teresa in a piece of pastry is not impressive. Nor is glossolalia, not even if it really sounds like a language. And faith healing, or people being "slain in the Spirit" and toppling over, owes more to showmanship and the placebo effect used on eager-to-please individuals that have been worked up into highly excitable, suggestible states. (Now, if faith healers could restore severed limbs...)

People's conversion stories.
I'm not interested in the testimonials of people who converted to a religion, not even if they used to be atheists. Everyone has moments of weakness in which emotion overrides logic. Instead of telling me how fast a religion is growing, how much of a difference it's made in people's lives, or how devoted its converts are, let those converts explain what logic and evidence persuaded them to join in the first place. If they can't do this, their stories will not affect me. After all, for obvious reasons, atheists are almost never the sort of people who go along with the crowd.

Any subjective experience.
Saying "I know God exists because I can feel him in my heart" or something similar will not affect me. Most arguments of this sort rest on the assumption that a person cannot have a completely convincing subjective experience and be mistaken regarding its cause, but a look at the diversity of world religions easily disproves this. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists - members of all faiths claim to have had convincing subjective experiences of the truth of that faith. Obviously, they cannot all be right. Why should an atheist accept any one of these testimonies as more valid than any other?

The Bible Code or similar numerological feats.
Using the same algorithms employed by the Bible Code numerologists, skeptics have been able to find assassinations and other historical events "predicted" in Moby Dick, War and Peace and other works of fiction that don't claim divine inspiration, so don't expect it to impress me.

Creationism of any sort.
I'm thoroughly familiar with the pseudoscience practiced by advocates of "scientific creationism" or "intelligent design". If you attempt to prove God's existence to me by listing the evidence for a young earth, more likely than not you'll be disappointed. (Though I'm always happy to debate the merits of evolution.)

See it all here. Thanks Plekanhov

A little bit about me.

I lost my faith before I was a teen despite the Old Testament being told to me at infant school as if it were fact and my Mother telling me the stories about Samson and Daniel. My Father told me about George and the Dragon too, only in his version, the dragon wasn’t there at the first time of calling so George retired to the pub. Years later, I understood why the student teacher had insisted I tell my story once more when the class teacher returned. It is fascinating how we order our world as young children, perhaps even more fascinating when we invoke invisible magic friends to give it order when we are adults.

I wasn’t brought up in a faith other than at school. My parents were Christians in the loosest sense of the word. My Father, a scrap metal dealer, had more fiddles going than you would find in Dublin on St Patrick’s Night. Indeed, he was arrested on bonfire night back in 1974 and charged with fraud. He made the front page of the local paper. The case collapsed.

I had a ‘vision’ one night during my sleep that pushed me back towards faith for a few months but by my teens, it really was all finished. At 15 I wrote to the local paper to complain about the legislation that required a ‘collective act of worship’ in schools, every day. They dispatched a photographer to take my picture and I was published for the first time. That put paid to my under-age drinking for a time. A week later and the replies were printed. I was slated. One comment that is etched into my mind is’ “One only has to look at the beautiful trees and birds to know there is a god”. Another is, “I blame all the shameful sex and violence we see and hear on TV”.

Aged 17, I was given a book to read, ‘Another Roadside Attraction’ by Tom Robbins. He did theology and the book was about finding The Source, via the Vatican catacombs and the body of Jesus which was found there. Soon after this I had dated a student of Politics, Philosophy and Economics who was at Oxford. Scary as it was, it broke my ‘Large City’ mentality and I ended up moving to an even larger city and mixing with some extraordinary people, not afraid to speak their minds.

So at 19, I was having regular sex, had a brilliant social life and knew that there was no purpose or meaning to our lives other than what we chose to give it. There was no deity, no reward in heaven, no nothing just an awareness of this amazing opportunity that had been given to me to ‘walk this way but once’ despite astounding odds against. Bill Bryson says it so well in his book ‘The Brief History of Time’.

Fast forward several bad relationship choices, a wife, three children, a further wife and two additional step children and we have arrived at the present. Just for the record, I let my oldest two girls be taken to church by their Grandma and didn’t make my views known until I was asked directly. Their mother was agnostic at best, a believer of ‘something’ at worst. Both girls (now 19 and 17) are atheists and both are lesbians. I doubt there is any correlation there but I know they don’t feel any guilt about their sexuality.

My son is quite gifted at maths. He is too logical to believe in macic. His teachers told him that he had to sing hymns in ‘religious assembly’. I told him he didn’t as it was an infringement on his human rights. Don’t you just love the Human Rights Act?

Anyway, since the internet put me in touch with like-minded people and I could watch videos and hone my thoughts, I have become an anti-theist. I now see religion as a disease.

The main Abrahamic faiths are convinced that theirs is the ‘one true faith’ and with that assumed territory comes at best, the teaching of creationist stupidity on schools and at worst, the mass slaughter of innocents. That is why I and many others get angry. We don’t want people who are incapable of understanding the process of scientific theory, but are willing to cherry pick the ‘scientific facts’ that support their crazy assertions, being able to force their views on others, particularly if those ‘others’ are children expecting to be educated.

The English Defence League was protesting in the Midlands yesterday. They don’t like Islam very much and they have racist affiliations. People were out in force to demonstrate their loathing for such tactics. However when a bishop, priest, pastor, preacher or whatever tells their followers that gays are abhorrent to society, women are second class citizens and contraception will not be tolerated, people seem to accept this as the norm rather than getting out there to take them on.

This may be changing with the ‘Protest the Pope’ demonstrations despite the media colluding to present the protector of rapists in a good light. The more we anti-theists become organised, the more we will take-head on the messages of condemnation, the bullying and the discrimiation that emanates from the pulpits of our green and not so pleasant land. How can people take them seriously when they are dressed in their finery and dictating morals to us? What gross act would the church have to do for people to finally turn their backs on it?

I think the idea of randomness and no meaning are so scary to so many people that they will cling on to their faith at any cost. A friend of my wife admitted as much when we were discussing the mass genocides that the god of the Old Testament had sanctioned. She said that even if God had been directly responsible for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, she would still believe in him as she could not imagine an alternative.

Go to church. Ask questions, challenge, heckle if needs be. We do it to politicians and some of them actually talk sense.

As PZ Myres said this week;
“We need to address the disease. And if you're one of those people trying to defend superstition and quivering in fear at the idea of taking on a majority that believes in foolishness, urging us to continue slapping bandages on the blight of faith, well then, you're part of the problem and we'll probably do something utterly dreadful, like be rude to you or write some cutting sarcastic essay to mock your position. That is our métier, after all.

There is another motive for our confrontational ways, and it has to do with values. We talk a lot about values in this country, so I kind of hate to use the word -- it's been tainted by the religious right, which howls about "Christian values" every time the subject of civil rights for gays or equal rights for women or universal health care or improving the plight of the poor come up -- True Christian values are agin' those things, after all. But the Gnu Atheists have values, too, and premiere among them is truth. And that makes us uncivil and rude, because we challenge the truth of religion.“

Like him, I am unable to compromise on reality.

“It's all about the truth, people. And all the evidence is crystal clear right now: the earth is far older than 6,000 years. Evolution is a real, and it is a process built on raw chance driven by the brutal engines of selection, and there is no sign of a loving, personal god, but only billions of years of pitiless winnowing without any direction other than short-term survival and reproduction. It's not pretty, it's not consoling, it doesn't sanctify virginity, or tell you that god really loves your foreskin, but it's got one soaring virtue that trumps all the others: it's true.”

I’m pleased I got that little lot off my chest.