Conversation with an atheist.

 All right, in 2 weeks I am giving my most ambitious talk to
date.  It is called a “Conversation with an atheist” and I will
give about 10 minutes of talk in the beginning about my philosophical
standpoint and my reasons for rejecting theism and Christianity. 
And then I will field questions over any area of interest from the
audience which is the college community that will be attracted to the
idea of “welcomes challenges from any and all angles”. So, while I’m
sure I’ll get questions about what I’m about to post (which is kind of
an outline at this point); I’ll be sure to probably run across all
sorts of objections and arguments.

Feedback will be very useful. Please let me know where I could be more
clear, concise, or whatever.  If I’ve missed something or if a
better point could be made.  Be brutal, I’m going to in front of a
crowd of probably 40 or so for at least an hour and a half. I’d rather
be torn up here than in person.

Outline of Conversation:

5-10 min opening

1. Acknowledgement of an infinite number of logically possible explanations.
2. Since (1), we must have criteria in place to accept any of them.
3.
So we start by requiring that claims, specifically about the external
world are believed in proportion to the evidence backing up that claim.
4.
The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary evidence is
needed to back it up: If I told you guys that I ran 2 miles without
stopping this weekend, I would say that you’re fairly justified in
believing me. There is nothing all that extraordinary about this claim
– I have legs, I look fit enough to do it, you’ve either ran that far
yourself or have witnessed many people accomplishing this feat.
5.
If I told you guys that I ran 2 miles without stopping in under 3
minutes – I would say that you ought to reject this claim unless I gave
some extraordinary evidence to back it up. This is an epistemic
principle – it is not a statement of fact about the external world. My
view is that you should say, “I do not believe that you have run 2
miles in 3 minutes based solely on your testimony.” Might I have run 2
miles in 3 minutes? Yes. Does that change the fact that you should not
believe it w/o more evidence? No.
6. Because I’m sure it’ll come up,
let’s talk about the “beginning of the universe.” My honors thesis in
physics is on big-bang relic neutrinos, so I have a comfortable
knowledge of big-bang cosmology.
7. That being said, people often
ask, “So, where did the universe come from? Or, everything has to have
a beginning…so what was the uncaused cause?” Etc., Etc. Let me respond
by giving these people the weakest answer I can give (which is also the
most honest) – I don’t know, but I’m willing to try and find out.
8.
I’m ok with not having definite answers – but it is something that I
think we should try to figure out. As Feynmann said, “I’d rather be
uncertain, than to accept an answer that might be wrong.” At this point
in the conversation, offering a possible solution, like, “well, God
created the universe” is fine and dandy, but until you can come up with
evidence FOR this claim, we ought to reject it. Sure, it’s a logically
possible explanation – but so is saying that the universe was created
by a committee of elves. Why pick one explanation over the other?
9.
Several thousand years ago, wind-god theists might have asked a
non-theist, “Where does the wind come if not a giant person blowing?”
This non-theist would be best to say, “I don’t know, but I’m willing to
try and find out.” If he had accepted the notion of a wind-god, we
might still believe that today, rather than have figured out that wind
is caused by a number of factors – none of them supernatural (rotation
of the earth, thermal heating by the sun…) Answering an “I don’t know”
with “some God did it” only stops inquiry.
10. Feelings from God.
11.
Next, because I’m probably going to be opposed most strongly by
Christians, I’ll say several of my reasons for specifically not being a
Christian.
12. First of all, there are far too many unsubstantiated
claims in the Bible to even take it seriously. Any claim about reality
needs to be either met with evidence or with a history of similar
claims that are well-attested, and the Bible does neither on far too
many.
13. Second of all, let’s assume that the Gospels are an
accurate description of what happened. That it’s as good as a clear
video documentary of all the alleged events that occurred when Jesus
was around. So we see miracles, we see fish and loaves and lepers and
walking on water and rising from the dead, and Jesus’ claims. What
should we conclude from this display? I would say that we should
conclude what the evidence tells us – that Jesus was a local deity that
lived 2,000 years ago. He didn’t explicitly make claims of being
all-powerful, or God-incarnate, but let’s assume that he did. Did he
ever once do a miracle that was world-wide? No, he could have shown his
power over the world by curing all leprosy everywhere at once, and it
would be attested by civilizations the world over at that exact date.
Or, he could have demonstrated his power over the entire universe by
carving out his message in the stars, so that everyone anywhere could
look up to the sky and see God’s message. He made claims about the
after-life, which are completely untestable. Here’s a bigger problem
though, once a person shows you the extent of his power – and it’s far
larger than anything we’ve ever encountered before, you can no longer
be convinced through demonstration of anything else about this powerful
creature. If Jesus were some evil eternal demon with an incredible
amount of power, it would be completely easy to possess a person for a
short 30 some odd years.
14. Oh, but Jesus did good works, drove out
demons, why would a demonic being do that? How does showing that you
have power over demons show that you’re good? When you drive a bunch of
them out of a few people, to convince thousands more that you’re good?
That’s simple tactics. What would you expect an evil demon to do to
convince you that he should be followed? Exactly what Jesus did – of
course, it’s also what you’d expect a “good” demon to do as well.
Hence, a significant and unsolvable problem for finite beings like
ourselves.
15. Finally, there is a moral reason that I reject
Christianity. My view on this is so foreign to most people that it can
best be described through a short parable (those are more familiar).
16.
Let’s say that to be admitted to Vanderbilt, Before you walk into the
room, Chancellor Gee states, that you have to take a “moral test” that
will occur in the examination room. To be admitted, you have to pass
the test. Otherwise, you will be rejected. When you get into the room,
you are given a multiple choice exam, and only you and a proctor are in
the room. When you finish the test, you bring it up to the front and
the proctor tells you that he’ll grade it in front of you. A passing
grade is 70, the proctor tells you. And you have made a 56 – good, but
you have not passed. You’re crushed and start to leave the room when
the chancellor enters the room and tells you, “listen, I can only
accept people who pass this moral test into our school, but I’d be
willing to change your grade from a 56 to a 100, all you have to do is
accept the offer.”
17. What do you do? What is the right answer if
you want to get into Vanderbilt? Is the “test” the answers on the exam,
or is the real “test” whether you accept something that you KNOW you do
not deserve?
18. If, you accept his offer, couldn’t his response be:
This was your test – whether you would take what you know you don’t
deserve; or if you would accept what you do deserve, regardless of what
you think the consequences will be. You have failed the moral test by
accepting my offer. Only if you had accepted what you deserve would you
have been morally worthy of our university.
19. The parallel with
Christianity should be clear. This example could be modified in
non-relevant ways to encompass those denominations of Christianity that
state that faith is a necessary but not necessarily sufficient
condition for acceptance to heaven. It’d be like saying that you need
to have had certain grades in high school to even get the test offered
to you in the first place, for example.
20. The point of the story
is to show that it’s entirely questionable over which course of action
will get you into Vanderbilt; but if that’s what you’re focusing on,
you’ve missed the broader point that you should not accept something
that you do not deserve, especially with a stated moral test.
21. Do
I think that this is how things really are with God and heaven and
faith in Jesus and allowing our sins to pass onto Jesus? No. I’m an
atheist and I don’t think that this exists. What I am saying, is, that
even granting that God exists, that he will judge us, and that He
himself tells us that we all fall short of the requirements for heaven,
and that while we do not deserve heaven, we can still get into heaven
by accepting the sacrifice that He has made of himself, it is debatable
over which course of action is the morally correct choice. Personally,
my ethics says that if a Just Judge (which we are assuming God is at
the moment) tells me that I deserve what is behind door number 1 based
on the life I lead, but tells me that I won’t like it, and that I could
go to door 2, which I don’t deserve but I would like it; I will every
time choose what I am told that I deserve.
22. Serving Justice and
taking the personal responsibility for my actions and receiving the
punishment that I deserve, if it be punishment, is how I choose to act.

So
to conclude, there are several layers of objections that I have to
theism in general, and Christianity in particular. First, there are
many claims without any basis for believing them. Second, even if we do
believe the claims, the conclusions we are meant to draw are far from
what the evidence suggests. And finally, even if we accept the
conclusions we are meant to draw, the morality of accepting what you
KNOW you do not deserve is enough of a problem to consider the
possibility that the real test that God gives you is if you accept the
personal responsibility and punishment that you deserve and in so
doing, only then are you rewarded with heaven.