Here is a
lovely set of questions laid out by Matt Slick, a popular Christian apologist,
on his website CARM.org. I thought it might be interesting to take a shot at
answering them on the off chance that it might help give people some insight
into an atheist viewpoint.
1. How would you define atheism?
The lack
of a belief in a god or gods.
2. Do you act according to what you believe in or what
you don’t believe in?
I
suppose it would be fair to say that I act according to what I do believe, but those beliefs do not include a god.
3. Do you think it is inconsistent for someone who “lacks
belief” in God to work against God’s existence by attempting to show that God
doesn’t exist?
Huh?
This is a weird question, tortuously worded in what looks like an attempt to
formulate a “gotcha!” scenario, that only ends up making the asker look like he
understands far less about the subject than he thinks he does. When an atheist
attempts to persuade someone not to believe in a god, he’s not “working against
[that] god’s existence.” The god either exists or it doesn’t, and persuading
anyone either way has no effect on that. What an atheist is working against is belief in that god’s existence. If
you’re of the opinion that there’s no good reason to believe the god exists,
and that people make decisions that negatively affect themselves and others
based on the belief that it does, then it is totally consistent to attempt to
persuade people to abandon the belief.
4. Why are you an atheist?
I can’t say that I’ve ever encountered a reason to
believe in a god, despite being raised in a churchgoing Baptist household.
5. How sure are you that atheism is proper position
to hold?
Pretty
darn. I’d like to think I could be persuaded otherwise if there were good
reason to change that belief.
6. On a scale from 1 to 5, one is weak, 5 is strong,
how sure are you that God does not exist
I’m
going to have to go with 4, given that on the web site this is actually a
multiple choice question and choice 5 is listed as “I know that God does not
exist.” I don’t claim to know it, so 4 is the next most certain.
7. Why do you believe your atheism is a justifiable
position to hold?
Because
I haven’t seen anything that convinces me that a god exists. Without a
convincing reason to believe something, why would it be justifiable to believe
it?
8. Do you affirm or deny that atheism is a worldview? A Worldview is a set
of unproven beliefs and/or assumptions that a person uses when interpreting the
world around him.
Deny,
I suppose. It’s a single answer to a single question, and no more defines a
worldview than whether or not I believe in centaurs or dark matter. Why does it
matter whether I consider it a worldview?
9.
What is your
opinion of the Bible?
·
The Bible is primarily fiction with occasional truths woven
into it.
·
The Bible was written by ignorant desert nomads
·
The Bible has been corrupted and cannot be trusted
·
The Bible is full of contradictions
·
The New Testament was written hundreds of years after Jesus.
·
All of the above
If I
were limited to the options above, I guess I’d have to say “All of the above,”
but with some provisions.
For
example, I wouldn’t describe the Bible as “corrupted and cannot be trusted.”
That implies that there was, at one point, a pure form of it that could have
been trusted, and that the reason not to trust it is that it has been altered
from that form. The stories it contains probably have been altered from their
original forms, but I don’t believe they were ever trustworthy, so any “corruptions,” are largely only of
academic interest.
Also,
whether you think the New Testament was written “hundreds of years after
Jesus,” depends a lot on how you are using “New Testament,” “written,” and
“after Jesus.” I mean, different books were written at different times by
different (largely anonymous) authors, none of whom were evidently contemporaries
of Jesus (if he even existed). Many of the books were edited and revised by
other anonymous authors until gathered together into their final canonical form
hundreds of years after the time Jesus supposedly lived. And more than once, as
there are multiple “canonical” forms of the Bible floating around nowadays, all
dependent on which translation it is and what denomination approved it.
10. What is your opinion of Jesus?
·
Jesus never existed
·
Jesus existed but has been fictionalized into deity
·
Jesus was a great teacher like Buddha and Confucius
·
I don’t know if Jesus existed or not
I don’t
know if someone existed who inspired the stories of Jesus from the New
Testament. If there was such a person, he’s almost certainly been so heavily
fictionalized that it doesn’t matter much whether the stories are based on
someone real or are complete fabrications.
11. What is your opinion of the concept of the God of
the Bible?
·
The God of the Bible is a moral monster
·
The God of the Bible is loving
·
The God of the Bible is fiction and does not exist
·
The God of the Bible is omnipresent
·
The God of the Bible is a construct of other god
concepts
Although
the poll doesn’t give the ability to select multiple options, I’d go with a
combination of 1, 3, and 5.
12.
What is your opinion of the Christian concept of hell?
·
Hell is an idea invented to control people
·
Hell is just an idea meant to scare people
·
Hell is what we experience here on earth
·
Hell does not exist
·
Hell is separation from God
·
All the above
Again, a
combination. This time 1, 2, & 4. But not merely that, either. Hell is an
insanely evil concept. The god of the Bible condemns people to eternal torture
for no real purpose. The punishment can’t teach them to choose to be “good,” or
obedient to the god, because the opportunity to do so is lost once you die. It
can’t serve as an example to others because nobody sees it until after they die
and it’s too late. It’s torture for torture’s sake. I cannot understand why
anyone would think the being that would create such a place would deserve any
worship, even if it did exist. Look ahead to question 25, by the way, and think
about hell in the context of that question.
13.
What is your opinion of Evolution?
Evolution
is the scientifically best supported explanation for the diversity of life on
earth. I guess I’m not clear on what you would consider in-depth study, and I
can’t say that I’ve studied it with the rigor of an actual evolutionary
biologist. But I do have a scientific and technical background, and the broad
strokes of what I do know of evolutionary theory fit neatly and logically with
the rest of my understanding of the natural world. Since I haven’t encountered
an anti-evolution argument that didn’t contain at least one gross
misunderstanding of the theory, I see no reason to reject it.
14. How would you define what truth is?
Well,
I’m no philosopher, and I understand this to be a question that has vexed
professionals for quite some time and is still unresolved. But I suppose a
reasonable practical definition would be that truth is that which corresponds
with reality.
15. Do you affirm that the physical universe is all
there is and that all things can be explained in terms of motion, matter,
chemical reaction, etc.?
I don’t
know. I haven’t encountered anything to suggest anything else, though.
16. If you were at one time a believer in the
Christian God, what caused you to deny His existence?
I can’t
point to any specific event or events. I have no trauma related to church, or
any great tragedy that made me angry at God, or anything like that. I just
realized as I got older that I didn’t really believe that one exists, and the
more I thought about it I realized I didn’t have any reason to believe one exists.
17. Do you believe the world would be better off
without religion?
Yes.
18. Do you believe the world would be better off
without Christianity?
Yes.
19.
If you oppose Christianity, which of the following options best
fits your reason.
·
I oppose Christianity because Christianity is morally wrong
·
I oppose Christianity because Christianity is dangerous
·
I oppose Christianity because Christianity is oppressive
·
I don’t oppose Christianity
All of the first three?
Really,
it depends what form of Christianity you’re talking about. Some of them seem
relatively benign, and I have little quarrel with them beyond their evident
untruth. Some, though, are actively engaged in activities that I consider
harmful to society and to individuals. These include, but are not limited to,
attempting to subvert the government to promote their own power, persecuting
LGBTQ people, fighting scientific progress & scientific literacy, oppression
of women, withholding medical treatment in favor of prayer, child abuse,
sectarian warfare, etc., etc.
20. Do you believe that faith in a God or gods is a
mental disorder?
No.
21.
Must we be able to demonstrate God’s existence through the
scientific method? Basically, the scientific method is a means of gaining
understanding about the physical universe via observation, hypothesis,
experimentation, prediction, and theorizing.
Don’t
think I didn’t see what you did, there. You see, I read ahead, and I know that you’re
setting up the next question by slipping the word “physical,” into the
definition of the scientific method. That way, you get to try and exclude the
method from applying to your god later on merely by definition. Well, I
noticed, and I’m not amused. It’s kind of my feeling that if anything is
observable, then the scientific method applies. And if it’s not observable,
then you can’t claim to know anything about it. Physical or not.
22. Is it a category mistake to require material
evidence via the scientific method for an immaterial God? A category mistake is
an error in logic in which one category of something thing is presented as
belonging to another category such as saying “the rock is alive”. Life cannot
be properly attributed to a rock since a rock is not within the category of
living things
Why do
you think putting the word “immaterial,” in front of something means we have to
accept its existence without a demonstration? Do you believe in immaterial
pizza? Immaterial dragons? Immaterial aliens from the Crab Nebula? As far as I
can tell, the category of “immaterial things other than thoughts,” is an empty
set. And even thoughts have physical manifestations whose effects can be
evaluated.
Either your
god affects the world, or it doesn’t. If the first, then it ought to be
demonstrable. If the second, then there’s no possible way you could know
anything about it anyway. But at the bare
minimum, Christians claim a god
that is capable of directly communicating with them, and they are capable to translating those communications into the
physical world. So one ought to expect consistent results from prayers for
guidance – but we don’t see that, do we?
Ultimately,
hiding your god behind “immateriality,” and “category mistake” language isn’t
providing a reason to actually believe in it, so much as making an excuse for
your inability to provide a reason. It’s basically saying “I can’t meet your
standard for proof. So, rather than take my assertion as unproven, I think you
should lower your standard for just this one thing.”
23. Where does morality come from?
Us.
The practical realities required for a social species to live together in
cooperation, given the state of the universe in which we live.
24. Are there moral absolutes? A moral absolute is a
moral truth that is always true and not dependent on opinions, society, or
preferences.
Short
answer: no.
Longer
answer: There are certain moral attitudes that are so broadly and deeply
ingrained in human instincts that they seem universal and feel absolute. But
they are neither of those things.
25. Is the following statement true or false? “It is
always wrong for everyone to torture babies to death merely for one’s personal
pleasure.”
Gonna
go with “neither true nor false.”
Look, I
know that the purpose of this question is to present a situation so viscerally
revolting that almost everyone would be forced to admit we believe it’s wrong.
And I do. I believe it strongly enough that, I’d like to think, I would try to
intercede to stop it if I were to encounter it. I believe that most people would. But that still
doesn’t make it an absolute.
26.
Should morality be based on reducing unnecessary harm?
Sounds
pretty reasonable to me. Maybe more on promoting the wellbeing of
thinking/feeling entities.
27. What would it take for you to believe in God?
Evidence
that can be consistently replicated regardless of who performs the test, and
points to that god as the single best explanation.
28. Do you think that a society that is run by
Christians or atheists would be safer? Why?
That’s
actually a very broad question. I would say that a generic atheist society
would probably be safer than a generic Christian one, if for no other reason
than because atheists would be focused on real-world consequences of their
behavior. Plus, atheism contains no commandments to harm anyone, whereas Christianity
contains a host of commands to kill and harm others. However, any specific
society is subject to a vast array of influences and philosophies, so it’s
really difficult to say. I imagine that a society run by the Khmer Rouge would
be hell on earth. But then, so would one run by Westboro Baptist Church.
Whereas societies run by Humanists or moderate Methodists will probably be
significantly more pleasant.
29. Do you believe in free
will? (free will being the ability to make choices without coercion).
By that
definition, yes.
30. If you believe in free will, do you see any
problem with defending the idea that the physical brain, which is limited and
subject to the neuro-chemical laws of the brain, can still produce free will
choices?
That’s
a bait-and-switch. In question 29, you defined free will as the ability to make
choices without coercion. In this question, you seem to be redefining it as the
ability to make choices without the constraints of physical law. Those are not
the same thing, and free will as you seem to be describing it in this question
may not be a thing that exists.
31. If you affirm evolution and that the universe
will continue to expand forever, then that would require an infinite number of
evolutionary possibilities. In an infinite number of such possibilities, do you
affirm that life forms would then evolve to the point of exceeding mere
physical limitations and become free of the physical and temporal, and thereby
become "deity" and not be restricted by space and time?
That
seems pretty far-fetched. It makes an entertaining science fiction or comic
book trope, but that doesn’t mean it’s plausible. There’s nothing in
evolutionary theory that suggests this might happen, and no mechanism I’m aware
of that would suggest how it’s even possible. So, absent a demonstration that a
nonphysical lifeform is even possible, I don’t think this is likely at all.
32. What is the Dillahunty Dodge?
Of the
choices offered in the survey, I guess I’d go with “not committing to any
position during a discussion so that you can’t be cross examined,” since we
weren’t offered the option of answering “a term Matt Slick made up in an effort
to blame his opponent for his own inability to prove his position.”
33. What is your opinion of Matt Slick, founder
of CARM.org?
I know little to nothing about Matt
Slick, except that he’s evidently the kind of dude who’d use a survey with the
supposed purpose of “…compil[ing] more information on what atheists are
thinking…” to take a shot at a debate opponent he’s been unable to best.
So that’s the end of the questions.
I hope my answers have helped provide some insight into how I think about these
issues. It was a long list, and some of the questions required pretty involved
answers to be fully addressed, so I’m sure there are probably some answers that
me be unclear or incomplete. So please feel free to ask for further
clarification on any of them.
As a “by-the-way,” if you followed
the link above you’ll note the following description for these questions and
their purpose:
“They are survey questions. The purpose is so that CARM
can compile more accurate information on what atheists are thinking about their
atheism, about religion, about evidence, and more.”
But if you read the questions, they
are obviously designed to lead the casual reader toward a conclusion. And also
to take shots at people the author doesn’t care for. It’s kind of disingenuous
in that way. But still, I felt like many of the questions were still worth
addressing. I hope you agree.