On the matters of faiths, beliefs, sciences and worldviews.

One thing I’ve always wondered is why Christians will often argue that mere human wisdom will get us nowhere, that science can’t discover God because he dwells outside the natural realm. Yet these Christians claim to know all sorts of things about God for sure, simply by instinct. How is it that God is natural enough to directly manipulate his followers’ brains into knowing intimate details concerning his methods, goals and wishes, yet he is at the same time completely and utterly undetectable by any kind of human means, even though we should at least be able to measure the changing brain waves of someone being affected by God. It simply makes no sense, unless the point really is to convey the illusion of knowledge about the ultimately unknowable.

For example, Christians like Ray Comfort will argue that complex design is proof that there is an intelligent designer, because they cannot imagine any way for these designs to form naturally. One of Ray’s favorite lines is that atheists believe “nothing created everything” (which, according to him, is “intellectually embarrassing”), and that by taking God out of the equation we’re left dealing with the fact that the chicken spontaneously chose to lay an egg one day, without anyone or anything “designing” that egg in the first place. It is of course the most horrible of straw men, neither atheists nor scientists believe any such thing. However, they will also refuse to take their own logic and reasoning that one small step further. If the argument is that nothing complex could arise without intelligent design, then the intelligent design that creates these complexities will also, in turn, be complex enough to warrant a creator of its own. This leads to an infinite regress, and neither solves any problems nor answers any questions.

In essence, when Ray tells me that I believe “nothing created everything”, he is also telling me that he believes that “nothing created God, which then created everything” whether he likes it or not. Yet pointing this out will render nothing but silence, or a change of subject, as response. He must, for his own faith’s sake, ignore any further reasoning along those very lines, lest he end up realizing that God is impossible.

If you want to watch real intellectual embarrassment in action, look no further than to Ray Comfort, the very master of digging one’s own grave.

Pat Condell is a rude, condescending and mean old man. Yet he’s also bright, reasonable, rational and, most important, largely right. He has, on his website, a list of Frequently Asked “Questions” which he answers in his own, particular style.

If I were to highligt just a few of these answers, I would choose…

Q: You don’t understand Christianity/Islam.
A: I don’t understand smallpox or typhoid either, and I’m equally disinclined to get acquainted with them.

…And…

Q: Prove God doesn’t exist.
A: That’s a tough one. Show me how it’s done by proving Zeus and Apollo don’t exist, and I’ll use your method.

Not to steal any more of his website traffic, read the rest of his answers right here.

This interesting little story makes it abundantly clear what the differences are between believers and skeptics.

Two people return to their long neglected garden and find, among the weeds, that a few of the old plants are surprisingly vigorous. One says to the other, ‘It must be that a gardener has been coming and doing something about these weeds.’ The other disagrees and an argument ensues. They pitch their tents and set a watch. No gardener is ever seen. The believer wonders if there is an invisible gardener, so they patrol with bloodhounds but the bloodhounds never give a cry. Yet the believer remains unconvinced, and insists that the gardener is invisible, has no scent and gives no sound. The sceptic doesn’t agree, and asks how a so-called invisible, intangible, elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener, or even no gardener at all.

The Parable of the Invisible Gardener was originally told by British philosopher John Wisdom. It highlights the lack of necessity of falsifiability in believer’s minds, and how faith can be adapted to explain away any and all problems that threaten one’s own theories. Where skeptics must, often against their will, accept fact, someone who takes something on faith must not. They can simply decide to believe whatever they want, regardless of proof or evidence.