Gods and Space Lizards - A Reply

This is a reply from Joshua Moran to this earlier article on gods, agnostics and space lizards. I’ll reply to the points in it later, but in the first instance it is worth putting up as a separate article. The quotes are from my original article, and the rest is Joshua’s reply.

‘Nobody can be certain whether or not George Bush is an alien space lizard’

Yes, but in raising this point, you - with respect - exclude the possibility of common sense. Common sense is an acceptable approach to use in formal philosophical enquiry (Aristotle and John Locke, in particular, focused on this subject).

Common sense doesn’t say: discount something out of hand - but it does say you can only give so much time or so much attention to something, and it does involve critical-thinking. From an everyday, practical point-of-view, if we didn’t apply common sense then we would go mad. Simple as that.

Arguments for space lizards versus a God

The common sense for discounting that Bush is a lizard (or whatever) is that no sort of argument can be made that he is one. But some sort of argument can be made for the existence of a God. For example:

• Many people have experienced transcendental / spiritual experiences - which suggest - but do NOT prove - that the divine might exist.
• There is no proof that Jesus is God, but there is good evidence that Jesus really existed as an historical figure: as a man in what is now the Holy Lands.

So there are arguments that make the existence of a divine Christ a lot more likely than the possibility that Pres. Bush is a lizard.

Don’t discount theories because of absence of proof

‘There is no middle ground on the question of whether or not you believe that George Bush is a space lizard, or whether you believe that gods exist. Either you believe these ideas, or you don’t believe them’

But do you not accept that there are some subjects where no definite answers can be provided. That doesn’t mean you deny the argument out-right because the argument is insubstantial (in the sense that no 100% proof can be provided). For example

• Do you reject all philosophical theories because these theories cannot be proved?
• Do you reject all scientific theories until those theories can be proved?

In many cases scientists have a hunch about something but they just can’t work out the maths at that particular point to give validity to that ‘hunch’. And then there are many theories where ‘proof’ cannot be provided - for example black holes - but that doesn’t mean we discount the theories outright just because ‘proof’ cannot be provided.

Applying common sense to beliefs

‘For example, I believe that I exist, that I have a physical body, that I had cereal for breakfast this morning, and that Carlos Alberto scored the fourth goal when Brazil beat Italy in the 1970 World Cup final in Mexico’

But how do you know that life isn’t just a dream? I mean Berkeley asked how can the senses be trusted. How do you know that the computer screen in front of you really exists? I understand the point Berkeley is making. But I think that you and I both apply common sense to our lives (if not we would go mad).

So, with respect, why do you not apply common sense in comparing the possibility that George Bush is a lizard with the possibility that Christ exists in divine form? So there are different shades of belief based on common sense.

‘I do not believe that David Icke injected a slow-releasing poison into my breakfast cereal, that I am the long-lost son of King Harald of Norway, that George Bush is an alien space lizard, or that gods exist’

No, because you apply common sense.

Transcendental experiences of the divine

‘unless I get new evidence to the contrary, in which case I happily change my beliefs’

So you reject everything that cannot be proved?

I have met more people who believe in God because they have had transcendental / spiritual experiences of the divine (what they term as ‘divine’) than I have met people who have been to Australia. I believe in Australia.

I believe in the existence of God not only because I have had transcendental / spiritual experiences of something that I think is divine in origin (and because I have met others who have had similar experiences) but for a host of other reasons (more clues to God’s existence than ‘reasons’):

• The great poets have evoked things such as the nature of the soul, ecstasy, and so on that are similar to my experiences
• Why is the natural world embued with extraordinary beauty when there is no utilitarian reason for it to be so (let-a-alone why it should exist in the first place, and how something can come out of nothing)
• Why do people act with unconditional love towards each other (and why unconditional love is such an extraordinary experience - beyond a feeling or a thought - when you are on the receiving end of it - as well as giving it)

And more.

What are the laws of nature?

‘because it is most inconsistent with the laws of nature as I understand them’

But what are the laws of nature?

• What is light (it has no mass). Is is light made up of particles or rays?
• Why do atoms go crazy and incoherent, turning into a soup when frozen to near absolute zero - going against all the rational laws of nature.
• How is string theory and the possibility of multiple dimensions beyond the ones we can experience in our 3D world possible?

Replies to arguments about why atheism is important

‘The idea of gods is bad for society’:

• Christ says the second most important law is: ‘love thy neighbour’
• The Good Samaratin
• Corinthians 13 (faith, hope and love but the greatest of these is love .. etc ..)

‘because it spreads irrational dogma’

With respect, don’t confuse non-rational with ‘irrational’. Just because a rational explanation cannot be provided for something doesn’t make that thing ‘irrational.’

‘that causes good people to do bad things’

What about:

• The good that religious people do because of: ‘love thy neighbour - The Good Samaratin - Corinthians 13.’
• The good that ordinary believers do in thier ordinary lives (things that cannot be picked up or reported in newspapers or history books as the bad, sensationalistic things can).
• The things that anti-theists do, such as Christopher Hitchens who supported the immoral war in Iraq for anti-theist reasons. Or Rwanda. Or Pol Pot in Cambodia. Or Stalin and the gulags. And so on.

Reading Shakespeare and the most important works of lit. tell us that people do bad things because of human nature not because of religion. Macbeth murders because of ambition. Othello murders because of vanity / jealousy. And so on. They don’t do bad things because of religion.

Yes, human nature will twist beliefs or create ideologies to do bad things - but it is human nature that is, ultimately, at fault - not religion (corrupt human nature that we all share - will find some banner or cause with which to unleash itself).

‘Rational thinking makes the following more likely: Enquiry: an ongoing unbiased quest for knowledge and truth’

• St Paul said that we have to ‘work out our own salvation’.
• Jesus: ‘to be as wise as snakes.’
• St Augustine’s works are rooted in Plato; Thomas Aquinas’ in Aristotle.
• Some of the most famous scientists, writers and poets of the 20th century were devout believers.

Rational thinking is part of Christianity - it is NOT a polar opposite as you seem to suggest.

‘Empathy: adult ethics, based on relating to other living beings’

• ‘Love thy neighbour’, The Good Samaratin, Corinthians 13.

‘Equality: a secular society that protects everybody’s rights’

• Same as above.

‘And irrational dogma makes the following more likely: Creeds’

• Same holds for secular dogmas (Fascism / Communism and so on).

‘accepting, as truth, imaginary answers to big questions’

• ‘Imagination is more important than knowledge’ Albert Einstein (and don’t forget that Einstein wouldn’t have been able to arrive at his great discoveries without creative-thinking, imagination, intuition and risk - it wasn’t all science / maths).

Best wishes

Joshua Moran

Photo: Lizard in the Serengeti by David Dennis (cc)

Please leave a comment below. You can also subscribe to my RSS feed.