God Is Love = Stupid Theology Part 1

God is love. (John 4:16)

Quite often these days I see religious folk posting quaint little blurbs like the above on the Internet.  It makes me really question whether they have thought through their beliefs--because if they post the above sound bite because they actually "believe" it--then all they have done is show how fallacious their beliefs really are. 

The above quote is not only a contradiction in terms--but it is also blatantly false. Only a person who has NOT taken the time to think about what the words are saying would be under the impression that the above sentiment is somehow agreeable. It's not, for reasons we shall soon discuss.

So from now on I have decided to rebut stupid theology anytime I see it--in a series fittingly called Stupid Theology--just to show why its not only categorically wrong to hold such beliefs--but ultimately such types of belief(s) prove false. I suppose you could believe it if you so wished--but to me this would only amount to the tacit admission that the only reason you hold the [specious] belief at all is because the lie makes you feel good.

The above proclamation of faith found in the quaint, and brightly painted yellow, epigraph is designed to squash your doubt with a catchy apologetic rationalization. In order to show why it is patently false, however, we need to re-examine it line by line. Methodical, I know--but hey--that's what using your brain is--hard work. Which is why people who post this stuff need to spend less time in the echo chambers of their faith--and spend a little more time thinking through their beliefs.

Sometimes I want to ask God why he allows poverty, famine, and injustice in the world when He could do something about it. But I'm afraid he might just ask me the same question.

Okay, so I broke the single sentence into two in order to better emphasize the clashing ideologies at play here. The first sentence is a secular humanistic response to the Problem of Evil (i.e., the Problem of Pain/Suffering as we find in the physical world). The Humanist thinks, if an all loving God truly did exist, then this suffering is inexcusable. Hence we must questions God's integrity, concern, and sense of justice.

Of course the Problem of Evil is probably the most difficult theological obstacle any theist can ever face, so it seems suspect that it is purportedly answered in the following sentence. But pay extra close attention to what happens in the second line, because the apologetics at work shifts the burden and theodicy, or defending the goodness of God in the face of all the suffering and evil in the world, becomes the focus.

The fact that we are lead to believe that it is our responsibility to fix the ills of the world reflects the humanist sentiment behind the quotation--and I agree, it's up to us to address the issues of poverty, famine, and injustice in the world--but the problem here is the second line redirects our focus from the fact that the quote is about God's responsibility to act in accordance to his "all loving" nature. After all, according to believers, the Bible, and the theology, God is love.

So what of this love? Well, instead of doing anything about the ills of the world--God is content to ignore them. Hardly something a loving God would do. Especially one with the power to prevent such ills in the first place.

Yet it is this very realization which provides the negation to his "all loving" nature. We soon come to realize that there is a deeper problem we need to address concerning God's conflicted nature. God's assumed nature, according to religious belief, is likely to be false given the nature of the evidence. According to the evidence (i.e., the pain and suffering in the world), God can either be all loving or all powerful, but not both. We know this for the very reason that the idea of an "omnibenevolent and omnipotent" God willingly allowing evil (in any form) to exist is patently absurd.

God could be "all loving"--but not all powerful. That is, he might merely be unable to effectively change the natural order of things. This hardly sounds like the God believers profess an ardent faith in--it's certainly not the God who created the universe and everything in it--it certainly can't be the Orthodox God of Christianity.

So here's the rub, if God was all loving and all powerful--then God must act in necessity (in accordance with his nature) to prevent evils such as starvation, famine, sickness, etc. Yet these things are, sadly enough, found in abundance. Also, because God (supposedly) has the power to create entire universes and everything in them, then we know God has (at the bare minimum) the power to effectively change the physical laws--i.e., change how pain and suffering affect living organisms--but his very refusal to do so shows that God cannot be all loving.

Thus we know God is NOT love.

As such, we are left with three possibilities as to what constitutes God's true nature. 1) God is malevolent, or 2) God is indifferent, or else 3) there is no God.

The fact that the quote we are dealing with misdirects our attention from the issues of God's obligatory necessity to prevent evil (according to his "all loving" nature) is an apologetic trick meant to shift the burden and make us feel guilty for the problem(s) which, technically speaking, are not our problems--if a loving God exists.

The fact is, humans are anything but "all loving." But we are compassionate, so our conscience grows concerned when we see injustice, poverty, and needless suffering. This suggests we are morally superior to the God of theism, because we exhibit empathy where he does not.
 
Granted, there are some (overused) theistic rebuttals, e.g., rationalizations, the believer can fall back on when confronted with these prior set of objections. They can claim God works in mysterious ways, his mind is unknown to us, so who are we to question God?

Well, the answer to this rationalization is quite simple--we have the inescapable obligation to question such a God--because he explicitly allows for suffering which he should find as shocking, unsettling, and horribly unfair as we do--if he were at all a compassionate sort of person, such as we humans typically are.

[Of course, not all humans are compassionate, I get that. But most healthy human beings exhibit compassion as an inbuilt feature of being, well, human. We have evolved this way. As such, a loving God would undeniably have to, at the very least, exhibit as much compassion as we do in order to be considered at all loving.]

Moreover, we don't need to know the mind of God to know that idly sitting by and doing nothing, simply letting injustice, suffering, and evil occur without so much as batting an eyelid is, not only wrong, but morally reprehensible!

Hence the apologetic ploy is to leave us feeling guilty when the question is (deliberately) reversed to question our inability (or refusal) to obey the imperative to prevent evil by having God ask us why we do nothing. Again, the message here is, ultimately, humanistic--God wants you to right the wrongs--because he can't be bothered.

Ultimately, however, as I pointed out--it's not our burden--if a loving God exists--because the imperative dictates it is God's obligation to prevent evil, suffering, and injustice since it is his very nature to do so. 

[Coincidentally, this allows us to rule out the other oft raised rebuttal that God must allow for evil in order to realize the greater good--this makes no sense when God, being all powerful, could actualize the greater good without the allowance of even a bare minimum of evil. The free will defense, when used to explain evil, only shifts the goal posts further back--it doesn't solve the problem of God's imperative to prevent evil.]  

Thus, the fact that injustice, evil, and suffering do exist in the world is strong evidence that, contrary to John 4:16, God is NOT love.

Now here's the kicker. Remember the three possibilities we are left with? To reiterate, God is either 1) malevolent, 2) indifferent, or 3) non-existent.

As such, keeping these three points in mind, when we re-examine the quote:

Sometimes I want to ask God why he allows poverty, famine, and injustice in the world when He could do something about it. But I'm afraid he might just ask me the same question.

What we are really asked to consider makes no sense whatsoever. 

First of all, if God is malevolent, then the reason he allows poverty, famine, and injustice is obviously because that is in accordance to what he wills. In other words, God desires there to be poverty, famine, and injustice.
 
Secondly, if God is indifferent, then the reason such things exist in abundance shows God simply doesn't care to do anything about it--they exist--so what? No skin off God's back. Deal with it.

Last but not least, if God is non-existent, then the quantity of evil we find in the world exists simply as part of the natural order, so it makes no sense to question something which isn't even there--something that's not real--but merely a figment of our imaginations. It is the equivalent of asking the Flying Spaghetti Monster why there is so much evil in the universe. It's a ridiculous and absurd question to even posit--so much so that it's downright delusional.
 
Thus the above religious sound bite is not only self refuting, but it is also a case of extremely stupid theology. 

Theists would be quick to realize this if they took even just one minute to think it through more carefully. But the fact that we can see such blurbs pop up all over the Internet is strong evidence that most theists haven't thought long enough, or hard enough, about their beliefs. Subsequently, this goes a long way to explain why religious belief in God persists--presumably because the majority of believers have never taken the time to properly question, or adequately address, the speciousness of their cherished beliefs in the first place.

The Age of Shallow Conviction and Strong Pretense

The Age of Shallow Conviction and Strong Pretense

Every now and again a random Christian sends me Bible verses, thinking, heck, this atheist doesn’t know anything about the Bible. Some just rattle off unrelated quotes, thinking that just by sharing with you this incomprehensible jumble of texts, it will somehow fill you with awe and make you a believer. Usually this tactic backfires because the Bible verses are so incomprehensible that you have no idea what they are trying to say.

Other times, the faithful will try to organize quotes, in some kind of rhetorical form, designed to get you to argue or defend your position, but once you do, they will supply other verses which negate your opinion, such as pulling the old ace out of the sleeve, and state the Bible, i.e. God’s Word, is the final authority on everything and so nothing you say could ever be used against their position. 

At once, they have made your position irrelevant because the have discounted your opinion, mainly because they don’t care what your opinion is, they just want you to accept theirs.
 

Sometimes I send them quotes from other skeptics and philosophers, and even other religions, since I figure if they read at least something from more than just one book, they will be better off.

Why the Kalam Cosmological Argument is a Non Sequitur

Uncaused Causes Can't Cause Themselves, You Know? What the F*@k?!
I am specifically going to address the classical version of the argument, since the modern version (involving time concepts such as the infinite) lacks an up-to-date understanding of basic physics and cosmology which sort of renders the entire argument moot in the first place. Therefore I won't waste mine, your's, or anybody else's time taking a part a non-argument.

A review of the Kalam Cosmological Argument (classical version): 

The Kalam Cosmological Argument:

1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe has a beginning of its existence.
3. Thus the universe has a cause of its existence.
4. This first uncaused cause must transcend physical reality.
5. This uncaused cause that transcends physical reality is the description of God.
6. Therefore God exists.

1) Mmmm... yeah. So everything has a beginning. This is, believe it or not, an untrue philosophical statement. Philosophically speaking, endings typically don't have beginnings. Now don't get me wrong, a play, a movie, a song on the radio begins and ends, but so far as we know, endings in themselves do not have beginnings. The circumference of a circle doesn't have a beginning or end. I should clarify, don't get confused, the creation of the circle (whatever cause should precede it) is merely the initiation of its existence. If you ask me however, if we have an uncaused circle, asking about the cause is illogical.

An uncaused cause, by its very nature, just is. So a circle which just is, then, may or may not have a cause for its existence. The question is sort of useless. It's like asking whether or not the concept of infinity has a beginning or end. Um, yes and no, to both. To rephrase number one, the wording would be better stated as: all physical reality which exists has a beginning and most probably a cause.

2) The second point, that the universe has a beginning is correct in that our universe exists and so it, as far as we know, must have had some kind of a beginning. The Big Bang is the going theory, but some researchers suggest that the universe may have had a series of near infinite beginnings (i.e., cyclic universe theory). So it would be more correct to assume that our understanding is merely provisional, thus the universe (as it currently is) most likely had a beginning (but the verdict is still out as to the exact nature to this beginning). At any rate, this merely affirms the statement that things which exist in reality must have had some kind of beginning, which simply becomes a redundancy when you account for the better rephrase of number one. Thus number two falls away.

3) Number three starts to get "philosophical" again, since any cause worth mentioning is, at this time, purely speculative. Logically, assuming causality fits with what we know and can observe, but really, it's just a non sequitur. It's basically claiming things which exist must therefore have been made to exist. But again, this too falls away when number one is properly restated.

4) As for number four, the first uncaused cause transcending reality, this is pure gibberish. First of all, we don't know what "causes" were involved in the creation of this particular incarnation of the universe. Of the variety of universes which could have been "caused" (even speculatively speaking) it seems that one which is capable of sustaining life is just as good as any other. What transcending reality has to do with things beyond initial causes is beyond me.

My point is, we cannot assume that the first cause, or quantum event, was uncaused. Quantum mechanics suggest quantum fluctuations are naturally ongoing, i.e., no cause, no beginning, no ending. It just is. Does this mean that Quantum flux transcends reality? Not exactly. After all, we can measure it. So number four, it would seem, is simply incoherent gibberish.

5) Onto number five! So although number four is pure gibberish, somehow this suddenly turns into the descriptive referent for God. The uncaused cause is God! Why? Because God transcends reality! Well, that's just a special pleading. How do we get from an uncaused cause (which as I have stated is purely speculative) to God? Which god? Idealistically, your God? Quaint. But ultimately, this means number five is a non sequitur.

6) Number six, the conclusion, affirms God exists. But this doesn't follow. After all, the only statement we have is that things which exist in physical reality most probably have a cause. At best, it's more special pleading. So let's recap:

The Kalam Cosmological Argument:

1. Unfounded speculation.
2. Probable but unconfirmed theory.
3. Philosophical speculation.
4. Sophist gibberish.
5. Non sequitur.
6. Special pleading, based on a faulty premise, and is likely a wrong conclusion.

Nothing to it. Literally. The Kalam Cosmological argument literally reduces down to speculation, gibberish, non sequiturs, and special pleading.

Hidden Theological Dimensions
Now, there's an implication behind the Christian theology, one which may not be obvious in the secular language of the formal style being used. This implication is that God (e.g., the God of Christianity) is a creator God, and therefore his "intention" (translated by theologians as "God's will") was to create the universe.

William Lane Craig often suggests this theological tidbit is the reason for why God would have initially chosen to "cause" the universe in the first place. Yet this assumes too much. We do not know what "caused" the universe or if it even had a cause. Furthermore, we know entropy (i.e., the second law of thermodynamics) is a veritable fact.

Three things arise from this observation, none of them good for the Kalam Cosmological argument or for Christian theology. They are as follows:

Argument from Entropy

1. a) Entropy suggests God's intention is not to create life but to destroy it. b) The evidence of this exists with his "entropical" nature, from the prior.

2. Any life which should arise is merely an unfortunate side-effect of God's desire to have things annihilated (from 1), since in order to destroy something you first must have something.

3. Knowing that, contrary to what Christians believe, God actually desires to have everything destroyed (from 2) for no good reason, we therefore know that he is a being of chaos and destruction, void of love, and is downright contestable.

Interestingly enough, in an unforseen twist of fate, the argument from entropy not only proves God is not a creator being but a being of pure destruction, it also proves God, who has the power to prevent entropy but does not, would rather see death than life--and therefore could only be considered an evil being.

Two Conclusions
If we take away any to things from this lesson, it is this: 1) The Kalam Cosmological Argument is a non sequitur. 2) The argument from entropy proves God is an evil being bent on the annihilation of all life in the entire universe.

Solving the Problem of Theodicy: Evil God Theory

Theodicy--the vindication of divine providence in view of the existence of evil.

Christians posit a Good God created everything, the universe, the world, and the birds and the bees, etc. But we distinctly live in a world with evil in it. There is injustice, great suffering, pain both physical and mental. The Problem of Evil is the whole reason that the theological consideration of theodicy becomes such a conundrum for Christians--because not only do they have to answer for the evil in the world, but they must also explain why a Good God would allow for it.

Theologians do this in various ways, most frequently invoking free will as an excuse to bring about original sin and through sin the perishing of the world along with all the evils which come along with it. Yet this line of reasoning fails to account for the suffering of animals or that suffering which is caused by natural disasters such as hurricanes, tsunamis, mine shaft collapses, so on and so forth.

Another common objection is the so-called problem of good (the inverse of the problem of evil) which basically states that there is good in the world so how can you account for it unless God was at least partially good? Never mind that evil is naturally occurring, such as suffering and pain, whereas good events are not naturally occurring--that is to say nature remains indifferent to our happiness and well being (a fine day is not sunny and warm just to make you happy but the wind could very well blow over a tree which comes crashing down on you causing you severe pain and even crippling injuries).

However, before they can even get to this point in the argument they have to justify all sort of strange theological exegesis to justify an unfounded metaphysical claim (i.e., that sin is real) and often choose to ignore any criticisms which may find fault in their fly by night theories. But I have a possible solution--a much simpler theory--an inference which not only accounts for why there is evil in the world but will still allow for the possibility of God.

Here's my theory, take it or leave it.

Putting aside esoteric theological considerations, ad hoc harmonizations, and poorly conceived Christian apologetics, minus all the ifs and buts, I am inclined to agree with Stephen Law, namely that the best explanation which does away with the problem of theodicy is that God is evil! Before you get bent out of shape hear me out. If God is *all good--then the creation of a world where evil, pain, and suffering are all very real is a major problem (since no all loving or just being would allow for it to begin with) which means one of two things: either believers are completely wrong about the nature of God (i.e., God is not all good), or their God simply does not exist (i.e., pain and suffering exist in a natural world apart from supernatural entities or metaphysical states).

Now the theory of a capricious, pernicious, or even malevolent God explains why there would be evil in the world and therefore explains away the Problem of Evil.

Most Christians, I think, will object to the fact that God (as they understand it) could be evil. Sure, I'll go with them on this (assuming the God of the Bible is not the best representation of God), but then, this means the best inference which accounts for evil in the world is that God is non-existent. Oops! Pain and suffering do (undeniably) exist in a naturalistic universe and often have regrettable consequences, and thus the Problem of Evil is a bane for the theologian and a boon for the atheist. Indeed, it seems to be positive evidence (via induction) that minus God we know that evil would still exist and we know this to be true (via deduction) because we are stricken by evils daily. So no amount of appealing to God's goodness will solve the problem or explain away the contradiction.

Changing the definition of God (by redefining his character as to allow for evil, etc.) merely appeals to the first objection, that believers simply haven't understood the nature of their God, and in ad hoc fashion, must change their definition of God to work around the problem. This is, contrary to what they may believe, strong evidence that they have no real (or clear) understanding of God (should he exist) and therefore their claim of God's "goodness" is without support. Yet having failed to establish a believable concept of God which simultaneously accounts for the problem gives them no basis for support that their concept of God is even very practical, meaning that the very existence of evil fully negates their concept of God (and changing the way they define God only reinforces the dilemma). Thus we are left with option number two as being the more probable one: no *actual God exists.

In conclusion, Theodicy and the Problem of Evil leads to one of two possibilities, both antithetical to Christian belief, either 1) God is capricious, pernicious, perhaps even evil or else 2) God is non-existent. Knowing this we should have no problem rejecting the notion of evil-theism any more than we would a theism which posits a good God but is logically and philosophically incoherent.

Hell = Evil God--Period

It's simple math folks. If *hell is real, then the God who created it is undeniably evil. No ifs ands or buts about it.

There are currently 6.9 billion humans living on this planet. Of this the largest religious majority consists of nearly two billion Christians (1.9 billion to be exact). Now whether or not all 1.9 billion Christians prescribe to Orthodox Christian thought and (coincidentally enough) every single one of them just happen to be genuine believers is a different matter. Most Christians will be the first to tell you other Christians are false, fake, wannabe heretics. But assuming there are actually that many genuine Christians (even as we know this is impossible based on diversity of Christian belief alone), but giving the statistic the benefit of the doubt, this means that 71% of the world's population do not believe in Christianity, Jesus, or the Christian concept of God.

According to Christian doctrine (e.g., the Bible) this means 71% of the world's population (currently) will be going straight to hell (not to forget the countless billions already presumably enjoying their unjust sentence there). That's over five BILLION people on a one way ticket straight to hell! Unbelievable doesn't even begin to describe such a preponderance of absurdity.

Now this raises an titanic ethical dilemma. How could an all "loving" God consign five billion people to hell simply for not believing in him enough? Think it through for a moment. According to Christianity those who don't believe in God will not be saved and will be sentenced to everlasting torture and punishment for the crime of ancestral sin (never mind that such a concept is irrational and incoherent to begin with).

All those innocent lives... simply forfeit. Christians like to affirm that if they knew God then they'd know the truth and so they'd believe and be saved (I should know--I used to preach it myself). Not only is this a ethnocentric point of view but it represents a myopic worldview which stresses the narrowest vision and sponsors a crude xenophobia. Never mind that Christianity has spread all over the world, they're not there because they want to embrace other cultures or understand them, they're there because they want to convert you. Why? I have it on good understanding is that because, in actuality, they are terribly afraid that they'll be alone in heaven (after they die), stuck for an eternity with--to borrow the phrasing of Richard Dawkins--a jealous, petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser, a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully--that is to say--the Christian God.

As for all that Jesus talk, you can keep it to yourself, Jesus doesn't do himself any favors by boldly supporting hell, even threatening those who refuse to follow him with it, so let's cut the B.S., shall we? If Jesus was truly loving he'd practice original forgiveness instead of original sin--let's not kid ourselves--the guy is as big of a prick as his father--albeit a bit of a sadist.

The bottom line is this--if there is a hell, then God is an evil bastard--period. No sane person can reason their way out of this conclusion--it's a logically sound argument--only unsympathetic, lacking in compassion and empathy, self-righteous truth deniers would even attempt to say otherwise. God is a bastard coated bastard with bastard filling... I mean the math doesn't lie. And anyone who thinks God is great, all loving, and concerned for our well being either failed math class or is delusional. Meanwhile the Pope is worried about the utilization of condoms while refusing to pursue and prosecute child rapists in his employ. Are you frackin kidding me? It seems the whole damn enterprise is fraudulent. 

I think it's high time we admit the truth--hell is an imaginary place. It's as imaginary as Candy-Land or God. Take your pick.

This important message has been brought to you by your friendly neighborhood atheist.